Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The decision we arrived at is that, for now, they'd prefer to have storage space (Given that there are just 15 users), with the decent'ish redundancy & performance offered by RAID 1
Not sure how the number of users plays into the decision, that bit is unclear. Seems more likely that fifteen users would not generate a lot of storage, but would benefit from a faster system. But the reality is that it probably doesn't matter in either direction.
RAID 1 is not "decentish" reliability (we always care about reliability, never redundancy) it's the most reliable form of RAID, you can't get more reliable. Just important to note, there is no way to get more reliable.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
- Carved-out a 64GB partition on Array1, and installed Windows 2012 r2 Std. (With GUI, as I am a Hyper-V noob. Once I'm acclimatized to Hyper-V, I'll uninstall the GUI) for the host OS.
You don't want a host OS at all, this creates overhead and licensing complications that you could otherwise avoid. It's not the biggest deal, but there are huge reasons that we say that the Hyper-V role should never be used. It's not about GUI vs. no-GUI. It's about a licensed OS versus a minimal control environment.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
- I'm thinking of using VEEAM Free, for back-ups.. The back-up destination would be a Synology NAS box, with a 5TB HDD. Does VSS need to enabled for backups ?
VSS where? Don't mess with VSS on Hyper-V, leave it alone.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
- Is one large 2TB VHDX fine for the data, or should is it recommended to break it up in smaller VHDXs
That's fine, that's not very big in this day and age. That's only the size of the smallest normal server disk for slower storage disks, not large enough to worry about carving up into smaller pieces. Multiple VHDXs become complex to manage.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
As already stated in my previous post, address the RAID issue now, RAID1 is safe, RAID10 is safer and faster. Get the client to put in 4 matching drives and go with OBR10.
RAID 10 is marginally less safe, and twice as fast. But nothing can be safer than RAID 1.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
I'm still catching up on the thread but this is such an important point that I'm echoing it, again. You are doing a fresh install, don't start crippled with basic installation mistakes. We know that you are new to virtualization, and we totally understand where there is tonnes of horrible advice out there that would suggest to you that installing Windows and the GUI and then Hyper-V is acceptable, but it is not. The average user of Hyper-V doesn't even know what Hyper-V is, so be wary of loads of very bad advice out there.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
I get that you are new to setting this up, and it is great that you reached out for advice. But you should not be learning, in production, on a client system FFS.
It's his boss that should be in trouble, or whoever decided to have him learn in that position. Might even be the client demanding it... same client that thinks that they themselves should be in charge of IT and makes some pretty basic day one mistakes like getting mismatched drives and buying gear before knowing the needed specs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
I know that the storage config is rather awkward - The server is brand new, and was purchased with 2x2TB HDD. After it was delivered, the client realized that they required more storage, so they bought an additional 2x3TB HDDs... I'm guessing They opted for 7.2RPM disk, due to cost constrains..
Important to note... whoever made that buying decision is the IT decision maker here and they made the decision to do two RAID 1 arrays. Why did that person get tasked with making that decision? Who knows, that is something to look into. But they are the authority on the server and are making the "tough" technical decisions here. You are just implementing decisions that they made already.
The really big questions to look into are things like "How did they buy a server and extra storage when they didn't have the person who understands the needs involved yet?" This indicates a significant business decision making problem somewhere up the chain. This suggests you have a rogue Head of IT hidden in the organization somewhere, and it might easily be a secretary.
Actually, here's what happened ... The vendor, from where this server was purchased, sold it, with the 2TB HDDs bundled... Currently, the client operates in a workgroup environment, with the data scattered across more than 10 PCs...
When I was assigned this client account, the first thing I did was to ask them to collate all the data, into a central storage repo... Once, they started moving all the files to a centralized storage, the total size of all the files they had shifted, was getting to be well over 2B. So, we ordered another set of 3TB HDDs.. Later, I noticed that a lot of data was from around 7-10 years ago, not really used actively, so shifted it to another storage unit, for archiving...
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
Absolutely. It applies everywhere, always. There are no exceptions to it.
-
@dafyre said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
I would suggest yes. Install Hyper-V 2016, and then install your VMs on top of that.
Correct
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Who came up with this rule?
It's one of the most fundamental rules of system design. It's been a rule for centuries. It's just turned into a rule of thumb with Windows because it is an anti-pattern.
Installing the OS adds overhead and risk without benefit. It's complication only for the sake of complication. When two things are equal, simplicity is better than complexity. But in this case, they are not equal. The OS install method brings huge caveats, licensing probably being the biggest.
-
@dafyre said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Who came up with this rule?
It's not really a rule... more of a guidline really.
But if you're going to use a server as a Hypervisor, why add all the extra overhead of a GUI attached to it and all that?
Edit: My guess would be @scottalanmiller or @JaredBusch , lol.
It's one of the REAL best practices. It's more than a rule. It's way, way, way more than a guideline. This isn't a "sometimes do this" kind of thing, it's an "always". I can't think of any factor that could provide an exception.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Who came up with this rule?
It's one of the most fundamental rules of system design. It's been a rule for centuries. It's just turned into a rule of thumb with Windows because it is an anti-pattern.
Installing the OS adds overhead and risk without benefit. It's complication only for the sake of complication. When two things are equal, simplicity is better than complexity. But in this case, they are not equal. The OS install method brings huge caveats, licensing probably being the biggest.
You'll keep saying the installing the the full version of Server 2012/2016 brings about huge licensing issues ... how ? doesn't 2012/2016 allow 2VSOE, and 1 OS ?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@DustinB3403 said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The point of not installing Server OS # onto the hardware for a Hypervisor has always been a guideline. And the reason being is it's wasted resources and energy.
You wouldn't install XenServer under Ubuntu.
Type 1 hypervisors exist for a reason, and it's so they can manage the hardware, and be as close to the hardware as possible for the management task.
Windows Server 201x (installed on bare metal) with Hyper-V role enabled is a Type 1 hypervisor, not sure why you think it's not.
Just one with extra overhead and risk.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
This rule has applied to all Hyper-V installations since Hyper-V Server 2012 was released. There is no other way that Hyper-V should ever be deployed for the SMB.
The exception to the rule (and only because people can be lazy) is if every single physical system was licensed with Server 20XX DataCenter. At that point you are licensed to run anything anywhere, so who cares. Be lazy, install Server on everything if you want. I still would not, but that is up to you.
More importantly, and this is what makes it a best practice not a guideline, this applies to all virtualization and is in no way MIcrosoft specific. It is only seen as a Windows guideline because only Windows creates a system that oddly encourages such a horrific idea. You can't easily do the same thing with any other hypervisor so it doesn't come up. So it feels like we are stating a Windows guideline, when in reality it is just the Windows / Hyper-V manifestation of a true industry best practice.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
I was told to install 2012 R2, simply because it's a more mature OS, by virtue of it being around for longer .. Infact, I'd prefer working on 2016
That's wrong. It is LESS mature BECAUSE it has been around "longer." Windows 2016 is the continuation of 2012 R2, it's the more mature, longer lived version of it. Windows 2012 R2 is the same family as 2016, but 2016 has two more years of maturity under its belt. Whoever is directing you doesn't understand software and is giving you a reason that should have led to a different decision. So you have a logic problem in management somewhere.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
I was told to install 2012 R2, simply because it's a more mature OS, by virtue of it being around for longer .. Infact, I'd prefer working on 2016
That's wrong. It is LESS mature BECAUSE it has been around "longer." Windows 2016 is the continuation of 2012 R2, it's the more mature, longer lived version of it. Windows 2012 R2 is the same family as 2016, but 2016 has two more years of maturity under its belt. Whoever is directing you doesn't understand software and is giving you a reason that should have led to a different decision. So you have a logic problem in management somewhere.
hmm... interesting way to look at it .. makes sense, when you put it this way...
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
On Windows 8x, we use RSAT to manage Windows 2012 Server. Can the same RSAT be used to managed 2016 Server, or Hyper-V 2016 ?
Only Windows 10 can manage 2016. RDP should never be used. You've discovered yet another problem in the environment. Why is IT's equipment not current or even close to current?
Also, don't call it Windows 8.x. Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 are totally different versions, the same as Windows 7 and Windows 10. Don't lump them together as if they are more related than they are to Vista, 7 or 10.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
My main reason for installing the full server, is non-familiarity with Powershell, and lack of proper freely available GUI tools, to manage remotely ....
There is no lack of freely available GUI tools for remote management. Windows comes loaded with these tools built in, even using nothing but a properly set up Windows environment provides everything that you need. But if you want even more than they offer, 5Nine offers a free version of their product that you could use, too. You have more than enough options to make sure that you never consider installing a GUI onto the server itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The client's desire to not purchase the correct drives is one of @scottalanmiller's famous sunk cost fallacies.
Kind of, although what they have sounds like it will work fine. What's of great concern here is:
- How could such basic, foolish business decisions have gotten made? They bought the wrong server. Then they tried to bandaid that and bought the wrong drives. How are they arriving at these decisions and how are they looking into correcting this? These are mistakes that take literally zero IT knowledge to identify and fix. So this means that the problems are core business problems and should be very scary.
- How does a "company" find the amount of money involved here even worth discussing? This is so little money that you should not be able to justify even five minutes of discussing it, even with a staff of just two people. Sounds like they are not making any money and have no plans to make any. They have fallen below the home line, that's where you should be worried.
