What makes a system HCI?
-
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
So, which is it?
Both.
HCI does not require more than a single box. It is stupid, sure. But to quote, stupid is as stupid does.
Technically, a stand alone server meets the criteria of hyperconverged because it has all the things.
Technically a lot of things are factual from a very specific definition. Just poke @scottalanmiller on any number of subjects....
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
Exactly. What "is" HCI is a factual thing that is very technical and while potentially interesting, is of zero value to IT to know and literally negative value for a board to know or discuss.
What IS HCI is one thing. What makes HCI valuable is a different thing. The tooling is the value, just being HCI alone isn't really a value.
That's why it is both. What makes HCI important and what makes something HCI aren't the same thing.
That your board needs THAT explained to them is what's of real concern.
THink about cars. WHat makes something a car and what makes a car valuable isn't the same thing. A car that costs too much, breaks down constantly, can't be fixed and is super dangerous has no value, but remains a car.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Ok, I can take that on board.
In what insane universe does a board...
- Talk about IT
- Know what HCI is.
- Have any ability to discuss this.
- Get into the weeds of understanding really, really technical IT underpinnings that no normal IT department knows?
I didn't notice this or maybe I just read past it. But @Jimmy9008 are you being asked to present to a "board" what HCI is?
Nonono, not at all. I mean this in the sense of I can take the idea on board/understand what was said/incorporate it in to what I think... nothing to do with boards.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
So HCI can only be obtained by purchasing a solution from vendors like Dell, Scale, Nutanix, VMWare?
Simply then, if the solution is not some proprietary tech from a company like that it will never be HCI, as it does not have the tooling?What? No.
Of course not, the linux community could (and likely are working on) an HCI solution right now.
HCI != ProprietaryIts about having the tooling, not the provider of the tooling.
Ok, I can take that on board. So... let me rephrase with that in mind...
Is this correct to say then: If the system does not have the tooling on top of the hardware it cannot be HCI.
Correct?
By "on board" did you mean - that you could accept that definition personally? or did you mean you would take to the Board of Directors at your company?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Ok, I can take that on board.
In what insane universe does a board...
- Talk about IT
- Know what HCI is.
- Have any ability to discuss this.
- Get into the weeds of understanding really, really technical IT underpinnings that no normal IT department knows?
I didn't notice this or maybe I just read past it. But @Jimmy9008 are you being asked to present to a "board" what HCI is?
Nonono, not at all. I mean this in the sense of I can take the idea on board/understand what was said/incorporate it in to what I think... nothing to do with boards.
OH!! I was confused to. WHat kind of BOARD would want to know these things, LOL.
Okay, makes way more sense now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
-
@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
So HCI can only be obtained by purchasing a solution from vendors like Dell, Scale, Nutanix, VMWare?
Simply then, if the solution is not some proprietary tech from a company like that it will never be HCI, as it does not have the tooling?What? No.
Of course not, the linux community could (and likely are working on) an HCI solution right now.
HCI != ProprietaryIts about having the tooling, not the provider of the tooling.
Ok, I can take that on board. So... let me rephrase with that in mind...
Is this correct to say then: If the system does not have the tooling on top of the hardware it cannot be HCI.
Correct?
By "on board" did you mean - that you could accept that definition personally? or did you mean you would take to the Board of Directors at your company?
The first one. Sorry for any confusion.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Yes, it's poormans HCI, because it lacks of lot of the tooling you (generally) would find great value in.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Ok, I can take that on board.
In what insane universe does a board...
- Talk about IT
- Know what HCI is.
- Have any ability to discuss this.
- Get into the weeds of understanding really, really technical IT underpinnings that no normal IT department knows?
I didn't notice this or maybe I just read past it. But @Jimmy9008 are you being asked to present to a "board" what HCI is?
I think Scott misread that comment to mean something it didn't.. but time will tell.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Yes, it's poormans HCI, because it lacks of lot of the tooling you (generally) would find great value in.
Cheers guys, I think you have covered my question.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Correct, it's HCI. Just crappy or possibly useless HCI
-
I was trying to understand why my team think multiple NIC means a solution is not HCI. I could not understand why they think that. Following this thread, I now know they are wrong. Plus multiple solutions have multiple NICs. Its just retarded to think that. You have also helped understand HCI, somewhat. The three/many nodes running vsan/failover cluster is HCI, but its not as nice as other HCI. Thats what I will take from this. Cheers folks
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Correct, it's HCI. Just crappy or possibly useless HCI
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Yes, it's poormans HCI, because it lacks of lot of the tooling you (generally) would find great value in.
IT's more just poor HCI. You can get decent HCI with bells and whistles for free. Not Starwind speed or Scale ease, but still valuable.
Starwind writes their own network and storage stack to make their tech possible. Scale writes their own storage layer to make scaling and load balancing crazy transparent.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?
Correct, it's HCI. Just crappy or possibly useless HCI
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
Well obviously, just three separate servers is better than that. An inverted pyramid of doom is "below baseline". Dramatically so. Baseline is just a single server with nothing converged at all (which is also HCI, hahaha.)
You need to bring in an architectural / risk consultant. But be prepared that someone really talking this stuff will have management wondering why people suggesting SANs aren't being walked out the door for probably taking vendor kickbacks.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.
I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.
I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.
Thats why I am specifically not doing this type of thing. As said, it may not be the top tier all bells and whistled HCI, but three nodes or more, with starwind vsan, running a windows failover cluster is 1) still HCI, and 2) better than doing an ipod.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Its rediculous we keep saying it if it is just not true, as it can never be serious.
You are not going to catch me arguing with you on this statement.
Ok, I get that. I'm not trying to argue, just to understand
So I guess my next leap from this then is what is inherently wrong with 'HCI like' setups? I can take on board that its not HCI, thats fine. But, does it make the solution bad.
Like I posted earlier, if I have a 3 node system running a windows failover cluster and a starwind vSAN... as long as it meets my uptime needs, is it still bad because its not, true HCI? If we take HCI as having to have tooling...
HCI is the "industry standard great solution approach." This implies a few things...
- THere are other great solution options.
- There are crappy alternatives as well.
- A great architecture implemented poorly is still crappy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.
I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.
Exactly.
"Oh you'll give me $2000 if I tell so-n-so to buy that six figure equipment set, done!"
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.
I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.
I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.
Thats why I am specifically not doing this type of thing. As said, it may not be the top tier all bells and whistled HCI, but three nodes or more, with starwind vsan, running a windows failover cluster is 1) still HCI, and 2) better than doing an ipod.
Yup. As long as it's Starwind vSAN and not any Windows storage, it's actually really good. WIndows, Hyper-V, Starwind... all good components. It's really ReFS and SS that are scary and to be avoided. This isn't bad at all, actually.
