I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
@wirestyle22 said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
We've been deploying virtualization solutions on Hyper-V since Longhorn/2008. We built our first cluster on the Intel Modular Server (probably the first to do so with Hyper-V) back in the day with our first IMS cluster deal following that up.
That's impressive because because from what I remember hyper-v was terrible in 2008.
Heh, it took 9 months of life, front-line access to the IMS engineering team, and some handholding by Ben Armstrong and Jose Barreto to get it going. It was a really cool moment to see the VMs Live Migrate between all of the nodes and then start right back up when we started testing failover scenarios.
And yes, it was very painful as we committed to deploying all clusters with Server Core and still do so today. Though, with PowerShell it's a lot less painful.
EDIT: And, thanks!
Good. I'm glad somebody is doing things right. I'm pushing an initiative to be remove GUI from as many windows severs as possible. It doesn't go over too well with techs that aren't powershell guys.
I always wonder what "I'm not a powershell guy" means. I hear it a lot. Does it mean these people aren't fans or they just don't know it? I think a lot of us probably prefer bash here. I'm not a powershell guy--meaning i don't swear by it, but I still read on it and learn it.
Not being a PowerShell guy to me means one can't efficiently script in PowerShell. That's not at all a requirement to administer a GUI-less Windows server.
There's no scripting at all needed to administer a GUI-less Windows server... none... To me, it just shows laziness and incompetence when someone says that.
To administer a server with PowerShell, you only need to memorize two commands, and such extreme basics that it just amazes me when people use the "i'm not a powershell guy" phrase.
Get-Command -Noun *whatever*(where "whatever" is a word related to what you want to work with on the server)For example, if you need to make a change to a network adapter on Hyper-V Server:
Get-Command -Noun *net*That will display enough for you to narrow it down. Once you find what you need, and you need examples or explanations:
Get-Help Set-NetAdapter -DetailedYou don't have to be "a PowerShell guy" for Windows server administration... and these cases only come up when there's no way to remote to your server using an RSAT tool.
You're in the exact same situation on Linux... nobody can remember all of the commands, but if you know how to search for a command and use help, you're golden.
There's really no difference in administering either one... the big difference lies in the scripting parts and general logic when diving down further than you need to past simple administration.
-
@obsolesce Bash makes a lot more sense to me than powershell, but part of the job is learning what you need to not necessarily just what you want to
-
@wirestyle22 said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce Bash makes a lot more sense to me than powershell, but part of the job is learning what you need to not necessarily just what you want to
Meh, I feel the both make equal sense in their own way... I like PowerShell's verb-noun and flow, and also the basic logical way of bash.
-
@wirestyle22 said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
We've been deploying virtualization solutions on Hyper-V since Longhorn/2008. We built our first cluster on the Intel Modular Server (probably the first to do so with Hyper-V) back in the day with our first IMS cluster deal following that up.
That's impressive because because from what I remember hyper-v was terrible in 2008.
Heh, it took 9 months of life, front-line access to the IMS engineering team, and some handholding by Ben Armstrong and Jose Barreto to get it going. It was a really cool moment to see the VMs Live Migrate between all of the nodes and then start right back up when we started testing failover scenarios.
And yes, it was very painful as we committed to deploying all clusters with Server Core and still do so today. Though, with PowerShell it's a lot less painful.
EDIT: And, thanks!
Good. I'm glad somebody is doing things right. I'm pushing an initiative to be remove GUI from as many windows severs as possible. It doesn't go over too well with techs that aren't powershell guys.
I always wonder what "I'm not a powershell guy" means. I hear it a lot. Does it mean these people aren't fans or they just don't know it? I think a lot of us probably prefer bash here. I'm not a powershell guy--meaning i don't swear by it, but I still read on it and learn it.
In this context it means "aren't savvy". It's not the right way to phrase it. It's "techs who don't know the systems that they work on and need a GUI to make it easy to find basic tasks." Has nothing intrinsic to do with PowerShell. It's CLI and shells in general.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@wirestyle22 said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce Bash makes a lot more sense to me than powershell, but part of the job is learning what you need to not necessarily just what you want to
Meh, I feel the both make equal sense in their own way... I like PowerShell's verb-noun and flow, and also the basic logical way of bash.
I honestly find nothing redeeming about PS. It's better than nothing, but compared to no real world alternative is it a respectable scripting and automation language.
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.Storage Spaces Direct is Datacenter licensing only. If you have core dense platforms this gets expensive.
-
@storageninja said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.Storage Spaces Direct is Datacenter licensing only. If you have core dense platforms this gets expensive.
And it isn't production ready, and doesn't have production readiness on its roadmap. And that's right from the MVPs. It's a joke that MS released way too early with no way to get working. In the enterprise space, it's essentially non-existent and those that have used it have been burned big time.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@storageninja said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.Storage Spaces Direct is Datacenter licensing only. If you have core dense platforms this gets expensive.
And it isn't production ready, and doesn't have production readiness on its roadmap. And that's right from the MVPs. It's a joke that MS released way too early with no way to get working. In the enterprise space, it's essentially non-existent and those that have used it have been burned big time.
The challenge (from a pricing and packaging perspective) is anytime you bundle something with another product, it's really hard to demonstrate value with it, or track demand.
Are people using it? What are they using it for? If you have a very non-direct sales relationship (Channel heavy) this gets even worse. You end up with a few things..Roadmaps are controlled by the handful of people who:
1.Are influences (having been at an event recently with a bunch of MVP's i'll caution they are not the typical user)
2. Are the largest accounts you sell with directly (Welcome to "must support IBM Domino as a requirement because the pentagon demanded it).
3. If it's a field you don't have a deep experience with (Storage) you get who you have relationships with (Ex. Application developers). If you are entering storage this is dangerous because these guys make giant assumptions about hardware and networking.
4. Internal customers (Dogfooding is good, solving problems of scale or feature integration that only you need at the exclusion of external customers can be dangerous). Good desiners anticipate this (See Steve Jobs).
5. You hope the market isn't moving against fundamentals (as an example prior to the iPhone, Price, battery length, efficient use of spectrum, and relationship with the phone company where the most important things for a phone company).This is all made worse by if you are a public company you can't legally discuss roadmaps specifics without an NDA and in public (lot of paperwork).
So what do you do?You give away the product until it has market share and people find it stable/usable (Microsoft Communication services vs. Lync in pricing as an example).
You pray that the early adopters you get are indicative of the rest of the market
You hope your PM's are damn good at anticipating where the market is going and not where it was. A classic example was blackberry ignoring 4G and having the Gaul to lecture Verizon that their 4G network would fail and 2.5G was good enough rather than build a 4G phone. (https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Signal-Extraordinary-Spectacular-BlackBerry/dp/1250096065)
Motorola took a risk with Droid, and Blackberry was "turned off". -
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@storageninja said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.Storage Spaces Direct is Datacenter licensing only. If you have core dense platforms this gets expensive.
And it isn't production ready, and doesn't have production readiness on its roadmap. And that's right from the MVPs. It's a joke that MS released way too early with no way to get working. In the enterprise space, it's essentially non-existent and those that have used it have been burned big time.
Microsoft knows what's happening with their products and how they are being used.
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
There are deployed to production S2D clusters out there. And, like everything else out there, there's always first-run jitters and issues.
We've seen issues in all Windows Server versions out of the box since 2008 R2 RTM and even earlier.
VMware has had some spectacular bugs with one of the latest brought to light by Veeam with data loss a very real possibility.
No software product out there is perfect. That does not excuse the early release cycles that we are seeing from many vendors not just Microsoft.
As far as licensing S2D goes, we SPLA the DC license with our SMB deployments starting at 10-15 seats and up. They are also great ReFS repositories for Veeam (something they request to have under their backups).
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
I'm curious to see how much permanent data loss has occurred as a result of using S2D.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
I'm curious to see how much permanent data loss has occurred as a result of using S2D.
10K clusters with more than 2 hosts was my understanding of their qualification. They didn't qualify how many reported the hard drives as virtual devices or block passed through from an array (I have a cluster in my lab running on top of vSAN). Note they quote clusters because competitors in HCI have 10K+ Customers (Some who have individual customers with thousands of clusters)
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
I'm curious to see how much permanent data loss has occurred as a result of using S2D.
Heh … I've seen many a disaster recovery situation where backups were either non-existent or failed with no indication of things being broken. We've been in them (BUE ugh) and have been called in on many more. If the backups have not been fully restored bare-metal or bare-hypervisor they are not proven thus no-good IMNSHO. Spot restores do not count.
Here's a bad one: Maxta
Slightly different situation but: Dell Stops Swonly Sales of ScaleIO Virtual SAN <-- Folks being left in a lurch.
Data loss responsibility starts with the folks managing the backups. Usually, they are not important and seen as a cumbersome expense until something goes blotto. Then all of a sudden the CxOs are throwing money at a proper disaster recovery setup. But, by then it's too late.
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
VMware has had some spectacular bugs with one of the latest brought to light by Veeam with data loss a very real possibility.
No software product out there is perfect. That does not excuse the early release cycles that we are seeing from many vendors not just Microsoft.I"m not aware of Veeam identifying any corruption for primary (VMFS/NFS/vSAN/vVols) storage.
Comparing a niche bug on VADP under specific situations could cause a differential backup to be corrupt to one that corrupts primary storage is...
Like comparing a flat spare tire, to the problem with the Cobalt that causes it to disable the airbags and crash. People have far higher expectations for primary storage, and they expect clear communication.Note, Veeam (and VADP based backups) are relatively easy to test with SureBackup (how Veeam found the last issue that I'm aware of).
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Slightly different situation but: Dell Stops Swonly Sales of ScaleIO Virtual SAN <-- Folks being left in a lurch.
Dell's server division (who took over ScaleIO ownership from CPSD) didn't want to sell it on HPE servers. That shouldn't really shock anyone.
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@storageninja said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.Storage Spaces Direct is Datacenter licensing only. If you have core dense platforms this gets expensive.
And it isn't production ready, and doesn't have production readiness on its roadmap. And that's right from the MVPs. It's a joke that MS released way too early with no way to get working. In the enterprise space, it's essentially non-existent and those that have used it have been burned big time.
Microsoft knows what's happening with their products and how they are being used.
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
There are deployed to production S2D clusters out there. And, like everything else out there, there's always first-run jitters and issues.
We've seen issues in all Windows Server versions out of the box since 2008 R2 RTM and even earlier.
VMware has had some spectacular bugs with one of the latest brought to light by Veeam with data loss a very real possibility.
No software product out there is perfect. That does not excuse the early release cycles that we are seeing from many vendors not just Microsoft.
As far as licensing S2D goes, we SPLA the DC license with our SMB deployments starting at 10-15 seats and up. They are also great ReFS repositories for Veeam (something they request to have under their backups).
Yeah, 10K clusters, but they aren't production and they aren't working. Insider info says S2D is dead and no serious use cases of it are out there. MS knows VERY well that it's not being adopted.
With companies of this size, it's trivial to make marketing data about cluster counts. 10K isn't even the number you'd expect in early labs.
We aren't talking early jitters, we are years past that, this is MS core MVP user base and enterprise customers finding it unusable.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Cosmos Darwin: Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 Clusters and counting
I'm curious to see how much permanent data loss has occurred as a result of using S2D.
Very little, because no one is using it in production. This helps them hide just how bad the situation is. Only 10K clusters means it's not even being tested heavily.
-
Maybe Hyper-V is more well known by more sys admins world wide and that's why it's so widely used?
Everyone knows Windows Server, it's a natural and free progression from there.
-
@siringo said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Maybe Hyper-V is more well known by more sys admins world wide and that's why it's so widely used?
Absolutely, marketing, not tech or business utility, drives 99% of IT decisions. As @StorageNinja once said, 99% of Hyper-V installations are done by accident or by mistake. People think it's supported when they install it, or they think it is requires for Windows or they think it gives them special licensing. Hyper-V is an okay product, but ask people who have been deploying it for any length of time, and nearly all of them will give you a reason that they chose it that is false, and almost always it's the same tired licensing mistake that tells us they don't know literally the first thing that everyone learns about Hyper-V.
Ask: What's the first thing to know about Hyper-V.
And everyone knows that it is "It's free and has no license and gives no licensing benefits."
Yet 90% of people using Hyper-V openly state that they use it because they "go the license as part of a package" or that they "need it because of Windows licensing", both of which contradict the very first thing you talk about with Hyper-V! It means the average deployment has never had even the most casual conversation about or investigation. It was not understood and someone deployed it thinking that it was something that it wasn't, and they kept it either because they never figured it out, it was too late, or whatever.
-
@siringo said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Everyone knows Windows Server, it's a natural and free progression from there.
In the world of IT doing things based on "what they heard of" and not "doing their due diligence", absolutely. There is no surprise at all that it is everywhere in bad installations.
Not that good installations don't do it, it's just that they are not the norm.
