Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.
Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.
Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?
Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.
By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.
What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?
The virtual machine(s).
You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.
Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.
That's fine. Virtualization changes nothing. You need to back up nothing more. If you sense any additional needs with VMs, that means you have those needs today but are failing ot meet them. So you are likely discovering holes in your backup and recovery strategy that are bothering you, but you didn't realize until we mentioned the virtualization. But literally anything that works today will continue to work virtualized.
Just to be clear, assuming a requirement is Windows, specifically what you all are suggesting is that
Instead of using the host OS, I turn on Hyper V and use a single virtual machine per server and keep all other things identical?
You never want to enable the hyper-v role.
Download Hyper-v from the website, its completely free and is current. You'd be turning on an old version of Hyper-V which makes no sense.
Do you mean Hyper V Server? The standalone thingee?
-
@creayt don't worry, we don't hold anything against you because you said in post one that you were a developer.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.
Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.
Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?
Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.
By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.
What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?
The virtual machine(s).
You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.
Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.
That's fine. Virtualization changes nothing. You need to back up nothing more. If you sense any additional needs with VMs, that means you have those needs today but are failing ot meet them. So you are likely discovering holes in your backup and recovery strategy that are bothering you, but you didn't realize until we mentioned the virtualization. But literally anything that works today will continue to work virtualized.
Just to be clear, assuming a requirement is Windows, specifically what you all are suggesting is that
Instead of using the host OS, I turn on Hyper V and use a single virtual machine per server and keep all other things identical?
You never want to enable the hyper-v role.
Download Hyper-v from the website, its completely free and is current. You'd be turning on an old version of Hyper-V which makes no sense.
Do you mean Hyper V Server? The standalone thingee?
Yes, Hyper-V is a type 1 server.
If you are enabling the role, it means you are binding your licensing to that hardware for Windows Server. (which is a completely separate product).
-
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.
Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.
Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?
Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.
By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.
What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?
The virtual machine(s).
You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.
Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.
That's fine. Virtualization changes nothing. You need to back up nothing more. If you sense any additional needs with VMs, that means you have those needs today but are failing ot meet them. So you are likely discovering holes in your backup and recovery strategy that are bothering you, but you didn't realize until we mentioned the virtualization. But literally anything that works today will continue to work virtualized.
Just to be clear, assuming a requirement is Windows, specifically what you all are suggesting is that
Instead of using the host OS, I turn on Hyper V and use a single virtual machine per server and keep all other things identical?
You never want to enable the hyper-v role.
Download Hyper-v from the website, its completely free and is current. You'd be turning on an old version of Hyper-V which makes no sense.
Do you mean Hyper V Server? The standalone thingee?
Yes, Hyper-V is a type 1 server.
If you are enabling the role, it means you are binding your licensing to that hardware for Windows Server. (which is a completely separate product).
Ah, good to know, thank you. Still kind of fresh on what Hyper V Server vs. Hyper V vs. Nano Server vs. Server Core all is, but I think I get it now.
-
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Makes sense, thx.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Hyper-V doesn't do well on SD unless installed by an OEM.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Hyper-V doesn't support installing to SD/USB. Just install it to a hard drive. Don't waste an SSD on it.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Hyper-V doesn't support installing to SD/USB. Just install it to a hard drive. Don't waste an SSD on it.
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
-
Assuming you can give up 60 GB on the RAID 1, just install Hyper-V there, then use the remaining space for your VHD
drive for your VM. -
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Hyper-V doesn't support installing to SD/USB. Just install it to a hard drive. Don't waste an SSD on it.
GTK, thx.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
The problem you run into here is that Hyper-V should be put on it's own drives. So you'll need another two drives in RAID 1 to run Hyper-V from, OR you could install Hyper-V on the current RAID1, and assuming there is enough storage space left over on that RAID 1, make the VM VHD for the boot portion of the VM, and on the RAID 0/5 make another VHD mapped into the same VM for the data.
Close, I never even bother with a RAID for Hyper-V. I put it on a SATA drive instead of an array drive.
I think since it's so small I can even just throw it on an SD card, right? These servers have slots for that ( then give the datacenter a back up SD card in case the first one fails ).
Not as easy as you would think. It is not a fully support install t is why I use a SATA drive. The 620 should have an unused SATA port inside, but it may or may not have power for it without a cable being purchased. Cannot recall off the top of my head.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
The array should still support it, just the capacity would be based on the smallest drive.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Read an article, I think by Scott, a few years ago that said OBR10 was the OB way to go in almost all cases, may be remembering that wrong. Scott/all, if I'm going to OBR the entire box, is 5 a better option than 10?
OBR5 makes sense when you are using SSD. OBR10 can make sense if you need more IOPS, but you half your available storage.
-
@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
These servers are 100% SSD, fortunately/unfortunately?
Ok than OBR5 the entire thing, and install Hyper-V to the array. . .
Different sized drives.
To be clear, only the 1TB drives are purchased thusfar, was planning on buying the cheaper/smaller 2x 256GB 850 Pros expressly to install the serverware and host OS on. I don't have to go that route.
