Looking for virtualization advice

DustinB3403

XenServer and Xen Orchestra could do this for the same hardware, and use the CR replication functionality so you're as current as every 1 minute. (assuming your storage and network can keep up).

Get outside support and not have to worry about a thing. . .

You could even just have a single server, and a backup target. If something happens to the working environment you'd simply restore.

It wouldn't be as fast as a Continuous Replication job, but it would be cost effective, and simple.

GaryP

A lot to consider here. Thank you for everyone's input. I need to run all these suggestions by a few other people in my office to get a better idea of what is important to stakeholders. I can then ask more specific questions.

bnrstnr

People always say that they don't want to manage the hypervisor and storage.... What is there to even manage? I've only used XS and Hyper-V, but every time I've ever set them up, they just run.... There is literally nothing to manage. Occasionally running updates is super simple on XS, an hour a month tops for 2 nodes. He's already planning for enough storage for the next 3 years, not like he's going to be upgrading that constantly, and if he does, just use move everything to the second node... Is there something I'm missing?

Obsolesce

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

I need to run all these suggestions by a few other people in my office to get a better idea of what is important to stakeholders.

Money. No need to ask.

What's best for the company is to have their services and data available when needed, while spending appropriately to get that accomplished.

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

DustinB3403

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.

DustinB3403

@GaryP have you performed a Business Impact Analysis?

That would help you to determine what solutions are the only reasonable solutions (in terms of financial spend).

Obsolesce

@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.

Maybe, maybe not.

GaryP

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, I am talking about IT. I don't always agree with how decisions are made or what they are based on. Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.

Dashrender

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, I am talking about IT. I don't always agree with how decisions are made or what they are based on. Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.

Right, but to Tim's point - every bit of that does and should boil down to money. Does the risk profile show the spend is appropriate, etc.

scottalanmiller

@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@kooler said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:

Side note, how do you calculate cores for Server 2016 on a Scale system. Is it per node?

because I specifically spec'd that Xbyte system with 2x 8core procs because of Windows licensing

It's per-core from Microsoft. Scale can't do anything to change MSFT licensing policy.

Right, I meant how do you count which cores apply.

You control where things run, if you want to at least. So you only count the cores where you allow Windows to run.

scottalanmiller

@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:

How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.

Tim is correct and this can't be overstated. Once you run the math, you have the answer. If a stakeholder votes against the math.... that's sabotaging the company. If you have stakeholders doing that, you have bigger problems.

scottalanmiller

@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@GaryP have you performed a Business Impact Analysis?

That would help you to determine what solutions are the only reasonable solutions (in terms of financial spend).

If he lacks the info that he needs, then definitely. Speaking to others to determine the components for the math, yes makes total sense. Once you have those numbers and run them, then opinions should end and it's literally all math.

scottalanmiller

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.

Either redundancy / DR is a money decision, or it's just emotional randomness that undermines the business. DR, performance, all that stuff comes down to profits and making money.

NashBrydges

@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:

I'm a bit partial to Restoronix here, for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure I'd say that your bias for Restoronix is obvious. While after some digging around on the site I'm sure someone could find the reason, but to ensure transparency, this is a case where I'd say a flat out disclaimer of your role with Restoronix should be required each and every time you make the recommendation. Many others on the site (if not most) carry the "Vendor" tag when they participate to highlight this where in this case, you do not.

Btw, Restoronix may be the perfect solution, I'm not saying it isn't. But representing your product you may want to consider avoiding even the appearance of conflict.

For the OP who joined only a few days ago: https://www.mangolassi.it/post/324872

Francesco Provino

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

We are looking to virtualize the servers in the data center in our office. Since most of our applications run in two co-lo data centers, managed by a service provider, the data center in our office could almost be considered a remote office.
Currently we have mostly physical Windows servers (yes, I know it is 2017) in this data center consisting of:
Two file servers for a total of 7 TB
Security system server
HVAC system server
Warehouse conveyor control server
We need to add about 6 Linux servers for SIP and a telecom specific application.

Ideally, we can move VMs to another host if one fails, but it doesn’t have to be instantaneous.
Current storage need is ~8 TB with room to grow to ~15 TB in the next 3-4 years. DAS, NAS, etc., whatever might work best for this situation.
Dell suggested a 3-2-1 architecture for over $100,000, which does not seem at all practical.
Another vendor suggested Dell’s VTRX with 3 M630 blades plus the storage.
We have started looking at HCI solutions, including Scale. StarWind and HPE SimpliVity as we do not the expertise in managing a hypervisor nor the time to manage it. Too many other projects and distractions.

We will need some sort of DR solution. We will want an on-site backup and a copy going off-site to Azure, AWS or similar.
Suggestions?

I've seen several business with similar requirement.

My suggestion for your scenario:

KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform.
Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)
Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.
Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.

I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.

JaredBusch

@francesco-provino said in Looking for virtualization advice:

KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform.

KVM or Hyper-V are the only things to use IMO.

Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)

This is just stupid expensive. Almost as bad as @scottalanmiller's recommendation for a Scale cluster. In fact I would by a $30k Scale cluster over something like this.

The only information we have form the OP is 2 file servers with a bunch of data. File Servers. This does not mean SSD, nor 576GB of RAM. The OP only needs 8 7.2K NL SAS drives in a RAID 10 to achieve 16TB of space. With a H7XX controller with 1GB or 2GB of cache, he will almost never see a performance constraint caused by the RAID array. Also, they OP is obviously a Windows shop based on the "add some Linux Servers" phrase. That means anything more than dual 8 core procs will immediately also call for an increase in Windows Server licensing. You suggestion means doubling their Windows server licensing.

Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.

This is way to generic. A large part of this will depend on the hypervisor and also on retention needs.

Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.

Likely the backup software can connect to this.

I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.

But for your proposed cost he is better off with a Scale cluster. The only reason I do not recommend it is because the hardware costs should not be anywhere close to a $30k Scale cluster.

Francesco Provino

@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@francesco-provino said in Looking for virtualization advice:

KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform.

KVM or Hyper-V are the only things to use IMO.

Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)

This is just stupid expensive. Almost as bad as @scottalanmiller's recommendation for a Scale cluster. In fact I would by a $30k Scale cluster over something like this.

The only information we have form the OP is 2 file servers with a bunch of data. File Servers. This does not mean SSD, nor 576GB of RAM. The OP only needs 8 7.2K NL SAS drives in a RAID 10 to achieve 16TB of space. With a H7XX controller with 1GB or 2GB of cache, he will almost never see a performance constraint caused by the RAID array. Also, they OP is obviously a Windows shop based on the "add some Linux Servers" phrase. That means anything more than dual 8 core procs will immediately also call for an increase in Windows Server licensing. You suggestion means doubling their Windows server licensing.

Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.

This is way to generic. A large part of this will depend on the hypervisor and also on retention needs.

Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.

Likely the backup software can connect to this.

I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.

But for your proposed cost he is better off with a Scale cluster. The only reason I do not recommend it is because the hardware costs should not be anywhere close to a $30k Scale cluster.

You are right, I took this configuration example because the vendor just quote it. Using the same single-server pattern, you can easily build a config that fit his needs (now I read them well) with 5-6k. The generic storage server as a backup target is just an advice against pre-made NAS.

StorageNinja

@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

Dell suggested a 3-2-1 architecture for over $100,000, which does not seem at all practical.

Suggestions?

Most important suggestion, don't talk to Dell (or any vendor) as their advice is solely to mislead you. You are correct, a 3-2-1 isn't just impractical here, it's insane. It bleeds the coffers without bring any advantages, literally none, over having just a single server. In fact, it is six points of failure when only one is needed. It provides no high availability, yet makes you pay for a crazy amount of redundancy. You spend $100K to less than $10K of system.

More important, give me the names of the Dell Reps, the quote number, and the partner who recommended VRTX. They shouldn't be leading with non-HCI solutions in this space. I've got a ~~Re-education~~ Training coming up for some Dell reps and partners and I would REALLY like some feedback on what's causing them to recomend non-HCI solutions.

I can offer bribes of dinner and drinks at most major conferences where I show my head

StorageNinja

@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:

@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:

We have started looking at HCI solutions, including Scale. StarWind and HPE SimpliVity as we do not the expertise in managing a hypervisor nor the time to manage it.

That's the appropriate short list. Of those, @Scale is the one that is going to offload the most from your plate. Starwind provides HC but you are still managing the hypervisor on your own, separately. It's architecturally all together, but the management console is not.

He doesn't need hyperconvergence. Don't sell him something he does not need. There is no way to intelligently get 15TB of storage on a Scale box for a reasonable price compared to local storage.

Other HCI platforms have no problem getting 15TB in a box (I had a serious discussion with an SE about a 300TB+ per host vSAN design and all the considerations around it). I think someone was taking socket based licensing to a ridiculous logical conclusion but with 100Gbps networking becoming affordable this stuff isn't that far off.

I regularly see 90TB configurations. Starwind and other mirror based SDS systems with direct connect can scale pretty deep.

The other thing to note is if most of this data is ice cold, it may be better to put it into an archive system. CloudArray or Choehsity virutal appliances and other systems like it allow you to dump the cold data into an ingestion point (NAS share, or iSCSI) where it is dedupe and compressed and then cold data is pushed out to the cloud and tiered to an object store of your choice. This way you can run HCI with Asymmetric storage growth. For engineering shops who have to retain 10 years of stuff this is a good way to make it efficient, archive it, tell it to mirror to two different AZ's in glacier and then ignore it. By doing data reduction on the ingestion you can cut down on your cloud storage quite a bit.

He can likely get a decent solution for a lot closer to 50K than 100K. (Go single socket, and use the HCI acceleration kits).

While a single server solution is fine, being able to do non-disruptive maintenance is really damn nice, especially with systems like HVAC and security that may have compliance or safety requirements on staying online.

For telecom, pay attention to what hypervisor your platform supports. A lot are picky because of timing concerns, or how they do clocking for trans-coding. If your not trans-coding it's not normally a huge deal but trans-coding is where stuff can get weird.

Curious why DR to Azure or AWS. While there are solutions that can do it, there are cheaper/better IaaS players who offer DRaaS (Look at Veeam's partner network, there's a lot of good players there).

If your hell bent on DR to Azure and AWS, choose Hyper-V for Azure, and ESXi for AWS (as VMware on AWS will be coming out of beta soon) would be my picks. Ideally though if your doing DR to either you'd be doing it at app/PaaS abstraction layer using something like Pivitol but you are too small for this.

StorageNinja

@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:

This is way to generic. A large part of this will depend on the hypervisor and also on retention needs.

Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.

Also will the backup software restore things like Active Directory, GPO's, SQL Schema's. Does it allow you to search for files (Good luck finding that PDF if you don't have an index!). Does it let you restore pieces of Mail from exchange etc.

Also you say DR to Azure or AWS. Copying 16TB of data there isn't DR. That BC. IF you need to re-hydrate 16TB of data at a file level over the WAN from S3 (which isn't fast to re-hydrate cold data over the WAN) it can get... fun....