Solved Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Aren't NL drives SATA drives with an enterprise connector? a SAS connector?
Did you just ask if SAS drives are SATA drives? Think about that statement.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
NL-SAS is just a marketing term for 7200RPM SAS. SAS is still SAS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I don't want to go with Hyper-V as base
That why use Hyper-V at all? What's driving you to all that complexity and licensing headaches if it doesn't meet your needs?
There no licensing complexity - there is an assurance to NOT put anything on the host OS.
There is ALWAYS licensing complexity.
First: That you have to manage which instances can and can't have anything installed.
Second: That you have to maintain the version of the underlying hypervisor to match the licensing of the VMs on top.This is a level of licensing complexity that screws shops constantly. It's enough for many IT shops to fall down on it. It means the obvious "keep things up to date" mentality breaks and you have to track licenses for something that shouldn't need a license.
That's not just complexity, it's problematic complexity that, in the real world, we see screwing companies constantly.
What? Are you saying you can't run higher VM's on the old hypervisor? i.e. downgrade rights?
I'm saying that you end up with a licensed, rather than free, copy of Hyper-V that you either have to pay to upgrade, or not upgrade. It's enough license complexity that you aren't even realizing all of the implications. That we have to dig in and explain just how complex it is, is just how complex it is!
So when a great new hypervisor release comes out, most any platform you'd be expected to update. But with Hyper-V deployed as a role, you have to license it and update that license. It's not free.
aww, yeah.. OK I get that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
NL-SAS is just a marketing term for 7200RPM SAS. SAS is still SAS.
According to the specs, my drives are SATA drives, not SAS. See the above post.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
According to the specs, my drives are SATA drives, not SAS. See the above post.
What? There is one and ONLY one spec that determines that a drive is SATA or SAS, and that is if it speaks SATA or SAS. Your's one spec that is relevant is that it is speaking SATA. So it is SATA by absolutely every spec possible.
NL isn't part of any spec.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
NL-SATA isn't a thing. There is SATA and NL-SAS.
SATA is a protocol. SAS is a protocol. NL-SAS is a marketing term for a drive that is SAS and has low end specs otherwise.
If it has NL-SATA written on it, it's not even a marketing term. It's nothing.
-
SAS and SATA are like English and French. Either you speak English or you speak French. That you wear a coat or a tie isn't a factor in the question of "what language do you speak."
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
ST9500530NS Seagate Constellation ST9500530NS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Enterprise-class Hard Drive Bare DriveThe term "NL-SATA" never appears in that drive information: https://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/enterprise/Constellation 2_5 in/100538694d.pdf
It's a SATA drive, that's all. I can only assume that the "NL" is something that you added somewhere by accident?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
ST9500530NS Seagate Constellation ST9500530NS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Enterprise-class Hard Drive Bare DriveThe term "NL-SATA" never appears in that drive information: https://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/enterprise/Constellation 2_5 in/100538694d.pdf
It's a SATA drive, that's all. I can only assume that the "NL" is something that you added somewhere by accident?
You're right, it doesn't appear that - It did appear in the IBM documentation when I bought it, which has all been sold to Lenovo no.. but meh.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
ST9500530NS Seagate Constellation ST9500530NS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Enterprise-class Hard Drive Bare DriveThe term "NL-SATA" never appears in that drive information: https://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/enterprise/Constellation 2_5 in/100538694d.pdf
It's a SATA drive, that's all. I can only assume that the "NL" is something that you added somewhere by accident?
You're right, it doesn't appear that - It did appear in the IBM documentation when I bought it, which has all been sold to Lenovo no.. but meh.
If you search online, it's really clear it's just a typo that a couple vendors made in casual pages here and there. Easy to do when you have NL-SAS and SATA crossover models, but it's just a typo. It's not a thing and wouldn't mean anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Well, my server is old 8+ years, but it has NL-SATA in 2.5 in form factor.
ST9500530NS Seagate Constellation ST9500530NS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Enterprise-class Hard Drive Bare DriveThe term "NL-SATA" never appears in that drive information: https://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/enterprise/Constellation 2_5 in/100538694d.pdf
It's a SATA drive, that's all. I can only assume that the "NL" is something that you added somewhere by accident?
You're right, it doesn't appear that - It did appear in the IBM documentation when I bought it, which has all been sold to Lenovo no.. but meh.
If you search online, it's really clear it's just a typo that a couple vendors made in casual pages here and there. Easy to do when you have NL-SAS and SATA crossover models, but it's just a typo. It's not a thing and wouldn't mean anything.
OK - Great.. But we're right back to the - my server supports both SAS and SATA... and if Pete is saying is correct ,there's not really a difference anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
my server supports both SAS and SATA... and if Pete is saying is correct ,there's not really a difference anymore.
In performance is all that he's saying. And only when in a server. He's still agreeing that there is a big difference when they are stand-alone. SAS still has features that SATA doesn't beyond performance.
-
Constellation was enterprise drives, regardless of the interface. 500GB in a 2.5" drive was high capacity at the time. Constellation ES was the 3.5" drives and they were up to 2TB I think. Both were available in SATA and SAS.
"Nearline" (near online) is an old term from the tape era but reused for marketing hard drives so enterprise IT could understand the difference between a fast drive with low capacity (for SQL server etc) and a slow drive with high capacity (for backups etc).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
my server supports both SAS and SATA... and if Pete is saying is correct ,there's not really a difference anymore.
In performance is all that he's saying. And only when in a server. He's still agreeing that there is a big difference when they are stand-alone. SAS still has features that SATA doesn't beyond performance.
Yes.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
and if Pete is saying is correct ,there's not really a difference anymore.
Yellow Bricks, generally considered one of the most important storage knowledge sources, still says that SAS queue depth is very important in RAID performance...
http://www.yellow-bricks.com/2014/06/09/queue-depth-matters/
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
and if Pete is saying is correct ,there's not really a difference anymore.
Yellow Bricks, generally considered one of the most important storage knowledge sources, still says that SAS queue depth is very important in RAID performance...
http://www.yellow-bricks.com/2014/06/09/queue-depth-matters/
It did not really say that. The blog post author said 6 years ago that controller command queue depth was important (another thing) and that SAS drives is the way to go because we'd have to imagine that SATA command depth can become a "choking point".
Well, I'm sure it can but I don't have to imagine. The same model 16TB SATA and SAS drive has the same maximum IOPS for random read/write operations. Hence the queue depth of SATA is obviously enough on that HDD or the IOPS would be higher on the SAS drive.
But I agree with the blog that if the price is roughly the same, you might as well buy the SAS drive - if your system can handle it.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Hence the queue depth of SATA is obviously enough on that HDD or the IOPS would be higher on the SAS drive.
Measured IOPS is contrived and bypasses the need for a queue, so doesn't tell us actual load performances, though. It doesn't imply anything with the queues. A max IOPS is always under a condition under which the queue is pre-managed.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
The blog post author said 6 years ago that controller command queue depth was important (another thing) and that SAS drives is the way to go because we'd have to imagine that SATA command depth can become a "choking point".
Well that it is six years ago doesn't affect anything, no change to technology. If it was true then, it would be true now.
The queue at the controller is a little different than the queue at the drives. So we'd expect that the drive queue still matters.
It would be an interesting thing to measure, but you'd have to have several drives of both SATA and SAS that are otherwise identical and a good test system. Not a cheap thing to test, sadly.
-
So this is suggesting...
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/P8DEA/p8ebk/p7ebkdrivequeuedepth.htm
IBM has a utility and guide for tuning the queue depth on individual drives under hardware RAID to adjust throughput vs. latency. This implies pretty heavily that the queue does impact performance and that tweaking it as needed does matter. If it didn't matter they'd be expected to ignore it, or to just set it to the minimum as it has no purpose. But that they tell you how to tune it for different kinds of performance means that they are either faking it, or it really matters
-
Here is an interesting theory as to why SSDs need longer queue depths in the drives, rather than in the controllers...
"Flash is so fast that the latency between responding to a request and getting a new request is a significant part of the process. With a hard disk that reponse/request latency is insignificant compared to rotational delay and head seek time. But with an SSD that waiting is a much larger percentage. Having a queue of requests gives the SSD more work to do after it responds to earlier work."
Just a random poster's opinion, but an interesting thought.
