XP: Options in virtualization setup
-
The current setup we now have is 1 physical server for each application. Meaning we have 1 server that holds DC,AD,DHCP and 3 other servers for 3 different applications(application and database).
Since the size of the company is not very big 40 PCs and 10+ printer devices we will do the setup from scratch. No transfers from old DC.
Option1: A recommendation we had was to get 2 new (or used) servers and a storage with RAID configuration. All virtual machines will sit on storage and the 2 servers will be used in High Availability, meaning if one drops the other one takes over. The processing is happening between the 2 servers.
Option 2: The other solution we are thinking is to get a used HP ProLiant G8 or G9 AND max up the CPU, ram and disk capacity. In that way, we can do a cost saving to the half. We will then create the VMs we want.
Off course we will have a plan for VM daily backup.
What my concern is whether option 2 it’s more prone to failure. You have 1 server holding the whole company and will be working to the max 24/7. But on the other hand, it’s a server and its job is to keep working 24/7 with its full potentials based on manufacturer’s recommendations.
I would appreciate your feedback.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011867-options-in-virtualization-setup
-
Well yes, of course. It is much more prone to failure. The entire purpose of the second server in the other example is to be a high availability mirror of the first one, so it's double the cost (yes, double, that's the only way to do it) but it can failover if one dies. Everything has to be duplicated. That's the high level "exactly what you asked."
-
Now the big question, of course, is how much does the extra protection matter? This is the hard part. We know that by doubling the cost you can get safer. But is it enough safer to justify all of the extra money? You need to look into what your cost of downtime is and what your risks are and compare that against all of that extra money that you will lose. In the US, it is very rare for a company of that size to need or be able to justify two servers like that, it just doesn't make financial sense most of the time. In Europe, it's a little more common to need the extra server, kind of a cultural trend. But you certainly don't "need" a second server, even going to just one is far better than where you are today.
-
The obvious approach here for a two node system, should you determine that that is the way that you want to go, is to look at using Hyper-V (which is free) and @StarWind_Software for your replicated location storage (which can be free, or you can pay for support as you like) to build a solid, low cost, high performance two node high availability cluster.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
Off course we will have a plan for VM daily backup.
I would recommend that you look at Veeam. They do a great job with Hyper-V.
-
You may not have thought through how consolidating four workloads into a single server will actually improve your risk profile, but it does. This is because IT is an inverse "egg and baskets" scenario. In this case, you are reducing four points of failure to one, which improves your overall reliability. You are also moving from more fragile physical servers to virtual, which improves your risk as well. And you are moving from old gear to new, also improving risk.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/6192/stop-talking-about-keeping-eggs-in-a-basket
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/virtual-eggs-and-baskets/ -
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
Off course we will have a plan for VM daily backup.
I would recommend that you look at Veeam. They do a great job with Hyper-V.
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
This is what we did. As doubling is too much and downtime is tolerable for us in the end (if downtime is limited), we pumped up an already deployed server a DL160G9, we buyed a new bigger one a DL380G9. 380 is the production server and it does the cruching , the 160 stays as "replica" and will be fired up just in case of a failure at the main server.
Altaro does daily backups, but veeam can be there - just a matter of personal preferences.
Of course the smaller server can't handle the full load, but enough ram let the DBs stay "responsive" enough and , if you plan a proper SLA for the main server, you can still keep part of the work going on during the failure.
-
of course we already had the DL160 so we needed just an extra 7-8% over the 380 cost to build the thing, but reusing HW is a common way to create a "life insurance" while keeping costs low.
Think like:
- main server: 10k sas or ssd depending on needs, enough ram, faster CPUs
- secondary: SATA OBR10, same ram if possible (this saves you with dbs), slower CPUs
basically the bare minimum to say: you are not at a full stop in the case a non redundant component in the main will fail.
or... you can still buy a Vertex
The thing here is: how much power do you need to allow for the cover of your daily costs? if you totally stop you have big losses. If the company is able to process part of its activities maybe you can cover daily costs at least...
while this is not simple to compute and estinate, I've used this parameter to define our "life insurance" -
I tend to lean towards Option2, unless the cost of downtime warrants HA. Now a-days, you can get HA for little cost if you already have the physical servers, or getting refurbished ones from Dell.
Even for a small SMB, you could potentially have HA for less than 10k. That includes two servers, StarWind vSAN, and the 1Gbs networking components. This can be done with Hyper-V Server and Linux, or using existing Windows Server licensing for infrastructure VMs. If you add the cost of two Server 2016 Standard licenses, that's another $3k. Otherwise, you can save that going Linux.
So, is an extra $5-10k worth the cost of avoiding the small chance of a physical server failure? Probably not, I stil see 2950's going strong! If you can afford 4 hours of downtime to go pick up a broken server part you don't have a spare of, then I'd go with option 2, plus good backups with Veeam.
-
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
Since I was the sole responder there (still am) and not here.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
Yep, I ready this and thought... Scott is going insane. Split personality maybe cant remember posting the question...!
-
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
So you hurt the SEO of 2 websites in one go? Good work.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
So you hurt the SEO of 2 websites in one go? Good work.
Cheer up, its Friday!
-
@Jimmy9008 said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
So you hurt the SEO of 2 websites in one go? Good work.
Cheer up, its Friday!
I just don't think we're being fair to the source by not back linking to them.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Jimmy9008 said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
So you hurt the SEO of 2 websites in one go? Good work.
Cheer up, its Friday!
I just don't think we're being fair to the source by not back linking to them.
Well, if when cross posting from here to there we could do that, then that's a viable discussion to have. As we can't, it's not.
-
OP is going with Hyper-V, unlikely because I mentioned it I think that was already decided, and is evaluating the cost of downtime to determine the value of the deterrent.
-
Oh should have I posted my reply on SW instead?
