HyperVisor
-
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
Ok, I will take a look. What is the software or flavor of linux of choice. Centos, Ubuntu ?
for me it is centos, cause of the logic :
If you want only one role to function in a server and it will not change, and you want it to do it good, and it does not require new features go with old stable or centos... everyone here will tell you fedora so you can be beta tester
-
@Emad-R said in HyperVisor:
If you want only one role to function in a server and it will not change, and you want it to do it good, and it does not require new features go with old stable or centos... everyone here will tell you fedora so you can be beta tester
You know darn well it's nothing like being a beta tester. Fedora is production releases, just like CentOS. It's just regular updates without problematic upgrades, rather than stagnation with upgrade problems.
CentOS is great if you don't have any plan of being retained and want to just let it stagnate and move on before you have to update it. Fedora is for people trying to keep updates regular and avoid big forklifts between versions.
Calling it a beta is ridiculous. CentOS and Fedora get their testing the same or similar. You are acting like you don't know the difference between the age of software versions and testing of software releases. That's stuff everyong working in IT needs to understand, it's core and critical concepts.
-
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
Ok, I will take a look. What is the software or flavor of linux of choice. Centos, Ubuntu ?
For a hypervisor, absolutely not CentOS. Ubuntu Current or Fedora. We mostly use Fedora, but are looking at switching. But platform updates are still something that using any LTS release will burn you on.
-
@Emad-R said in HyperVisor:
for me it is centos, cause of the logic :
If you want only one role to function in a server and it will not change, and you want it to do it good, and it does not require new features go with old stable or centosThe problem here is associating "old" with "stable." CentOS isn't really any more stable than Fedora. It's just a code base that doesn't change. That's a totally different concept that exists for legacy application support. It really has no place here where the entire stack is updated and maintained together.
The other problem is that in a hypervisor, those "new features" include things like speed and stability. So there is no such thing as a situation where you don't want them. Sounds good, until you look into what it actually means in this situation, then it's clear it doesn't make sense. And the huge risks that it adds that people like to ignore can be just huge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in HyperVisor:
We mostly use Fedora, but are looking at switching.Why?
Switching to what? -
@FATeknollogee said in HyperVisor:
@scottalanmiller said in HyperVisor:
We mostly use Fedora, but are looking at switching.Why?
Switching to what?To Ubuntu, we are using it more and more now. It's come a long way and gets more attention and is lighter is basic builds.
-
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
Assuming Moore's law holds, 7 years newer equipment, you're looking at 6 to 8 times faster gear.
It doesn't hold unfortunately.
Per core it's 15-20% faster per generation when there is a major technology shift. A lot less otherwise.
So R710 is Nehalem Xeons.
We have the following major generations:
- R710 - Nehalem architecture, Xeon 5500 series, on 45 nm
- R720 - Sandy Bridge architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v1, on 32nm - PCIe 3.0 introduced on E5-2600 v2 series.
- R730 - Haswell architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v3, on 22nm - DDR4 RAM introduced
- R740 - Skylake architecture, Xeon Scalable, on 14nm
Expect cores on a R740 to be roughly 70% faster than R710 at the same GHz. It's a lot but not as much as you would think. Especially since clock speeds have gone down and core count has gone up.
-
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
-
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
Any place besides ebay to get servers.
@xByteSean one of ML advertisers... they are good ( So I hear) in spite of being an advertiser
They are great, bought from them at the last place I worked. Support was great, shipping was great. Sales was great.
-
@scottalanmiller said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 here is my MangoCon talk on why RLS blows any external storage out of the water...
Interesting video. Thanks for that. Where do you get the rough number of nines figures from for various kit?
-
@Pete-S said in HyperVisor:
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
Assuming Moore's law holds, 7 years newer equipment, you're looking at 6 to 8 times faster gear.
It doesn't hold unfortunately.
Per core it's 15-20% faster per generation when there is a major technology shift. A lot less otherwise.
So R710 is Nehalem Xeons.
We have the following major generations:
- R710 - Nehalem architecture, Xeon 5500 series, on 45 nm
- R720 - Sandy Bridge architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v1, on 32nm - PCIe 3.0 introduced on E5-2600 v2 series.
- R730 - Haswell architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v3, on 22nm - DDR4 RAM introduced
- R740 - Skylake architecture, Xeon Scalable, on 14nm
Expect cores on a R740 to be roughly 70% faster than R710 at the same GHz. It's a lot but not as much as you would think. Especially since clock speeds have gone down and core count has gone up.
We've got a mix of 720 and 730 units in production and the 730s deal with the spectre / meltdown garbage much better than the 720s.
-
@notverypunny said in HyperVisor:
@Pete-S said in HyperVisor:
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
Assuming Moore's law holds, 7 years newer equipment, you're looking at 6 to 8 times faster gear.
It doesn't hold unfortunately.
Per core it's 15-20% faster per generation when there is a major technology shift. A lot less otherwise.
So R710 is Nehalem Xeons.
We have the following major generations:
- R710 - Nehalem architecture, Xeon 5500 series, on 45 nm
- R720 - Sandy Bridge architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v1, on 32nm - PCIe 3.0 introduced on E5-2600 v2 series.
- R730 - Haswell architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v3, on 22nm - DDR4 RAM introduced
- R740 - Skylake architecture, Xeon Scalable, on 14nm
Expect cores on a R740 to be roughly 70% faster than R710 at the same GHz. It's a lot but not as much as you would think. Especially since clock speeds have gone down and core count has gone up.
We've got a mix of 720 and 730 units in production and the 730s deal with the spectre / meltdown garbage much better than the 720s.
That's interesting to hear. Did you notice this on the production workloads or is it from running benchmarks?
-
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
This is where I get confused. Isn't moving up to a 720-730 about the virtualization technologies in the CPU's vs just having newer processors?
In the past, I could not start VM's on Hyper-V on a Dell R300 because the CPU did not support EPT so I stuck with ESXI. I only have this example so I don't know if it applies with the 710 or not with the newest hypervisors.
I have not dealt with the R7xx line and have been mostly in the R5XX line or lower. Is that the difference?
-
@notverypunny said in HyperVisor:
@Pete-S said in HyperVisor:
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
Assuming Moore's law holds, 7 years newer equipment, you're looking at 6 to 8 times faster gear.
It doesn't hold unfortunately.
Per core it's 15-20% faster per generation when there is a major technology shift. A lot less otherwise.
So R710 is Nehalem Xeons.
We have the following major generations:
- R710 - Nehalem architecture, Xeon 5500 series, on 45 nm
- R720 - Sandy Bridge architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v1, on 32nm - PCIe 3.0 introduced on E5-2600 v2 series.
- R730 - Haswell architecture, Xeon E5-2600 v3, on 22nm - DDR4 RAM introduced
- R740 - Skylake architecture, Xeon Scalable, on 14nm
Expect cores on a R740 to be roughly 70% faster than R710 at the same GHz. It's a lot but not as much as you would think. Especially since clock speeds have gone down and core count has gone up.
We've got a mix of 720 and 730 units in production and the 730s deal with the spectre / meltdown garbage much better than the 720s.
Yeah S/M are definitely other really good reasons to upgrade!
-
@pmoncho said in HyperVisor:
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
This is where I get confused. Isn't moving up to a 720-730 about the virtualization technologies in the CPU's vs just having newer processors?
In the past, I could not start VM's on Hyper-V on a Dell R300 because the CPU did not support EPT so I stuck with ESXI. I only have this example so I don't know if it applies with the 710 or not with the newest hypervisors.
I have not dealt with the R7xx line and have been mostly in the R5XX line or lower. Is that the difference?
What year did the Dell R300 come out? the R710 was from 2009 - thats ancient from a hypervisor POV. I'm sure moving up as you mention have that in mind, but that's not all, the performance increase is still likely to be noticeable.
-
@pmoncho said in HyperVisor:
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
This is where I get confused. Isn't moving up to a 720-730 about the virtualization technologies in the CPU's vs just having newer processors?
In the past, I could not start VM's on Hyper-V on a Dell R300 because the CPU did not support EPT so I stuck with ESXI. I only have this example so I don't know if it applies with the 710 or not with the newest hypervisors.
I have not dealt with the R7xx line and have been mostly in the R5XX line or lower. Is that the difference?
Besides being older hardware, as long as the hypervisor of choice is/has been supported on them in the past (and is current) then they should work just fine.
Upgrading wouldn't hurt for sure, as you'd have relatively current hardware with warranty support (and likely better support from your hypervisor of choice).
But as with many of the topics posted by @mroth911 I'm thinking this is more a PoC than a production workload and would work perfectly fine.
No offense @mroth911, just so many of these topics are a 1-hit wonder and we never hear back, that and they are all so varied on what you're looking to do.
-
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
@pmoncho said in HyperVisor:
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
This is where I get confused. Isn't moving up to a 720-730 about the virtualization technologies in the CPU's vs just having newer processors?
In the past, I could not start VM's on Hyper-V on a Dell R300 because the CPU did not support EPT so I stuck with ESXI. I only have this example so I don't know if it applies with the 710 or not with the newest hypervisors.
I have not dealt with the R7xx line and have been mostly in the R5XX line or lower. Is that the difference?
What year did the Dell R300 come out? the R710 was from 2009 - thats ancient from a hypervisor POV. I'm sure moving up as you mention have that in mind, but that's not all, the performance increase is still likely to be noticeable.
It was like 2007/2008 I believe. I know its old but so is the R710. That is where I was getting confused. I wouldn't think that using an R710 would be worth it to run only 2012R2 Hyper-V or ESXI 6.0 if one wants to really learn.
I am still using the R300 but only because I am still able to run the newest OS VM's. It is SLOW, and stinks but it is what I have to work with at the moment.
-
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
What year did the Dell R300 come out? the R710 was from 2009 - thats ancient from a hypervisor POV. I'm sure moving up as you mention have that in mind, but that's not all, the performance increase is still likely to be noticeable.
But at what cost? I understand the value gain for sure, but this is a topic posted by @mroth911, who's topics border on the clinically insane side of things (again no offense mroth).
As a PoC to just setup and see where and how things should be setup, using these in a lab scenario is perfectly acceptable.
-
@pmoncho said in HyperVisor:
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
@pmoncho said in HyperVisor:
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@mroth911 said in HyperVisor:
What kinds of servers do you recommend. I have dell R710. Or should I look for getting better servers? I am going to get all SSD drives.
Those servers are perfectly fine servers, if you wanted to upgrade the storage that's perfect too.
No reason to purchase different equipment unless you needed too for whatever reason.
This is where I get confused. Isn't moving up to a 720-730 about the virtualization technologies in the CPU's vs just having newer processors?
In the past, I could not start VM's on Hyper-V on a Dell R300 because the CPU did not support EPT so I stuck with ESXI. I only have this example so I don't know if it applies with the 710 or not with the newest hypervisors.
I have not dealt with the R7xx line and have been mostly in the R5XX line or lower. Is that the difference?
What year did the Dell R300 come out? the R710 was from 2009 - thats ancient from a hypervisor POV. I'm sure moving up as you mention have that in mind, but that's not all, the performance increase is still likely to be noticeable.
It was like 2007/2008 I believe. I know its old but so is the R710. That is where I was getting confused. I wouldn't think that using an R710 would be worth it to run only 2012R2 Hyper-V or ESXI 6.0 if one wants to really learn.
I am still using the R300 but only because I am still able to run the newest OS VM's. It is SLOW, and stinks but it is what I have to work with at the moment.
Aww - yeah, definitely the incorrect learning platform since you're talking about learning old shit, not current.
-
@DustinB3403 said in HyperVisor:
@Dashrender said in HyperVisor:
What year did the Dell R300 come out? the R710 was from 2009 - thats ancient from a hypervisor POV. I'm sure moving up as you mention have that in mind, but that's not all, the performance increase is still likely to be noticeable.
But at what cost? I understand the value gain for sure, but this is a topic posted by @mroth911, who's topics border on the clinically insane side of things (again no offense mroth).
As a PoC to just setup and see where and how things should be setup, using these in a lab scenario is perfectly acceptable.
But PoCing old tech - assuming he can't run the latest versions of Hypervisors - is worthless. Why would you PoC old stuff? God only hopes you aren't deploying that old stuff.
wasn't @mroth911 talking about putting in all SSD storage? That will likely cost a lot more than the server - and he's then likely to run into bottle necks in the server instead of the storage.
