RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host
-
Duh, you're right, my bad.
Though the OP did voice concern about not having any left over storage... So your second solution would solve that.
-
Thank you for all the input. I will try to answer as many as the questions as I can.
@wrx7m said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
What server are you going to use as your host?
Server 2012r2
@scottalanmiller said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
My thoughts were to put the virtual machines OS' on the two drive raid 1 array and the data drives for both our ERP and file server on the second array.
Yup, that's fine. It would be better to have all six drives in a single array not in split arrays, but the split arrays aren't dangerous here, just not as good speed or capacity as merging them all into a single array. A single array would be better all around, no downsides.
What type of RAID would be best in this scenario?
@Dashrender said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
We are looking to purchase a Hyper-V host to consolidate a few of our physical servers. The two main servers would be our file server and an ERP system. The ERP system is supported on Hyper-V, however their recommended RAID is as follows:
Two drive Raid 1 for the OS
min. 4 drive Raid 1+0 for the data array (15k SAS)Our ERP data size is around 400GB and our file server data size is around 700GB.
My thoughts were to put the virtual machines OS' on the two drive raid 1 array and the data drives for both our ERP and file server on the second array. At are current data usage, (4) 600GB 15k SAS drives would not be leaving us much more room for growth.
Should I add more drives to the second array or create a third array with less expensive drives since our file server doesn't require 15k drives.Thanks,
GDo you know your IOPs usage? What is the drive array configuration of your ERP currently? We can do some real rough calculations based on that (type of drive, RPM, number of drives in each array, etc).
I do not have a current IOP usage. The current config is a standalone server with two split arrays. OS is on a RAID 1 with two 15k drives; Data is on a RAID 1+0 with 4 15k drives. The only data I have currently is below. I know it may not be the best indicator but it is all I have at this point without collecting more data.
Read Queue length: Spikes to 2/3 during peak usage hours otherwise at 0
Write queue length: Spikes to just under 1 during peak usage hours (same as read) otherwise at 0
Disk Busy Time%: Spikes between 80-100% during peak hours (same as above) otherwise at 0
I will try to get actual IOP usage today.@Dashrender said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
Duh, you're right, my bad.
Though the OP did voice concern about not having any left over storage... So your second solution would solve that.
The idea is to have left over storage for future growth.
Thanks again for all of your input.
-
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
-
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
Well he could, but he shouldn't.
-
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
This is very important.
-
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
My thoughts were to put the virtual machines OS' on the two drive raid 1 array and the data drives for both our ERP and file server on the second array.
Yup, that's fine. It would be better to have all six drives in a single array not in split arrays, but the split arrays aren't dangerous here, just not as good speed or capacity as merging them all into a single array. A single array would be better all around, no downsides.
What type of RAID would be best in this scenario?
Single array is quite a bit better.
-
@scottalanmiller said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
This is very important.
Besides the licensing aspect, is it important for performance reasons? So the host can dedicate as as many resources to its vm's as possible?
-
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@scottalanmiller said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
This is very important.
Besides the licensing aspect, is it important for performance reasons? So the host can dedicate as as many resources to its vm's as possible?
The licensing aspect is what it is all about. By installer Server 2012 R2 onto the physical box, you lose all portability of your 2 allowed VM's. The license is tied to the base install.
Installing Hyper-V server is the only way anyone should ever install Hyper-V
Assuming you do Core+Hyper-V role with a full Server 2012 install, you are nearly the same resource footprint as Hyper-V Server so that part has nothing to do with it.
-
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@scottalanmiller said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
This is very important.
Besides the licensing aspect, is it important for performance reasons? So the host can dedicate as as many resources to its vm's as possible?
Licensing, performance, recoverability, support or other good practices...
-
@i3 said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@scottalanmiller said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@JaredBusch said in RAID recommendation for Hyper-V host:
@i3 you do not install server 2012 r2 onto the hardware. You install Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
This is very important.
Besides the licensing aspect, is it important for performance reasons? So the host can dedicate as as many resources to its vm's as possible?
Regardless of those other two posts above... what do you mean by licensing aspect? Just trying to get a feel for where you are.
