Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?
-
May be better to to go with SW's Appliance then, if the cost comparison makes sense.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
May be better to to go with SW's Appliance then, if the cost comparison makes sense.
It makes the choice between a) getting the appliance and b) getting the hardware myself and buying the Starwind VSAN stuff myself, very easy. The appliance is much better value.
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
So the goal is not for high-availability, but for host redundancy?
If that's the case, two Hyper-V hosts with the built-in replication just works, and works well.
Just keep in mind that going that direction, you could have between 30 seconds and 15 minutes of permanent data loss should you decide to spin up a replica if primary host dies. (unplanned fail-over)
However, planned-failover is a nice to have if live migration isn't suitable.
Being all Linux guests, no need to worry about licensing (so long as there's no software running on top of it with weird restrictions).
Yes HA would be nice but I suspect we don't really need it. However when it's available (see what I did there?) for a price that doesn't break the budget then it becomes tempting.
Here's the thing... it's basically free. Once you want the support from SW, it's free to have HA. If you want to do free Starwind, it's free. Basically, no matter what set of factors you go with, HA ends up being free within the context. It's not something you pay for (outside of the Vmware world.) So while it is important to understand it is a "nice to have", it's also important to remember that you should always get it and don't settle for less because it's always there for free.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
Right, but then as you mentioned before this won't apply then:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
Yes that's how I've been trying to think about the appliance. Also since it comes with Active Support from Starwind, in theory my worry about less technical people having to support this when I'm away becomes less relevant. In fact, theoretically I would barely need to support it
-
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Can you do SW vSAN on Linux now or must you use their appliance?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Yeah, I think that the thing to avoid is the false middle choice. If you want support, then the appliance sounds like the slam dunk. if you want free, then KVM and Starwind seems like the logical choice. The middle "compromise" option is something humans naturally gravitate towards because we are drilled with terrible concepts like "all things in moderation" which is utter nonesense, that's just some trite saying someone made up, it's not some rule of the universe. A common marketing trick is to get an over the top best option, a crappy bad option, and an overpriced middle option with high margins. People jump at it because it is in the middle and the other two make it seem reasonable, no matter what it is.
In this case, Hyper-V's limitations and lacking HA seem reasonable given the cost of the appliance, that we forget that the KVM + HA option is also free and way better. No one is selling this option, but because of how it feels like a middle compromise, it gives the same psychological effect making it feel good, even when it is the one option that should be ruled out as not making sense.
Ruling out false options quickly helps with decision making. Because just leaving it in makes our brains do weird things.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Can you do SW vSAN on Linux now or must you use their appliance?
Appliance for the moment, SW VSAN on Linux is their number one priority right now, that's what is coming for KVM.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Can you do SW vSAN on Linux now or must you use their appliance?
Appliance for the moment, SW VSAN on Linux is their number one priority right now, that's what is coming for KVM.
That can't come soon enough.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Can you do SW vSAN on Linux now or must you use their appliance?
Appliance for the moment, SW VSAN on Linux is their number one priority right now, that's what is coming for KVM.
That can't come soon enough.
No kidding.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
It's in the ballpark of 15k more for the appliance than buying the hardware myself from an xbyte equivalent. Getting the active support and having the whole thing setup and monitored by the experts may well be worth the money. I'm not very experienced at making these value judgements..
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
It's in the ballpark of 15k more for the appliance than buying the hardware myself from an xbyte equivalent. Getting the active support and having the whole thing setup and monitored by the experts may well be worth the money. I'm not very experienced at making these value judgements..
What's the value of your support over the span of SW's support period, and renewal costs?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
It's in the ballpark of 15k more for the appliance than buying the hardware myself from an xbyte equivalent. Getting the active support and having the whole thing setup and monitored by the experts may well be worth the money. I'm not very experienced at making these value judgements..
The question in value I think is what's the difference in cost between your own xByte hardware and the appliances, both with support?
-
@jaredbusch done replication outside of AD not complex just a matter of certificates. If I dig I should find some notes. But I have to translate them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
Out of roughly 30 VMs, 2 are Windows server instances. We're mostly running Centos here.
I'll look into SA licensing. I'm not very familiar with it.Given that skill set, why look at Hyper-V instead of KVM? Both have been officially dropped from Starwind support temporarily until their new product roles out, which is KVM first, that's their key focus as they see it as the one with the greater future and potential. Hyper-V in general is more complex to manage than KVM. It's a fine product, but given your skill set and existing products, KVM seems like a more natural fit. Generally, Hyper-V makes sense only when you require a specific feature of it.
I'd tend to agree here, KVM running Linux VMs sounds like a better choice. Hyper-V makes sense if it's a "free" offering comping as part of already paid Windows Server licenses.
P.S. Not sure about VM backup with KVM.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
Oh and I've already got Veeam backup and replication (a 30 vm license) which gives me good agentless backup options for Hyper-V. 5-nine manager or something like it would likely be required as well.
5-Nine would be "extra" stuff only needed because Hyper-V doesn't have the native options that it provides. Another reason for KVM.
Veeam is great, but they have agent based for your scenario. We have another thread right now talking about this, but why do you see agentless as even something you want, let alone a driving factor in decision making? It sounds nice, but is very rarely (especially in such a large, diverse shop) viable.
Well, Microsoft released WAC (Windows Admin Center, ex- "Project Honolulu") to fill lack of management gap, but... I'm very pessimistic about WAC so far: too many compatibility issues and no single scenario is covered from Day Zero till the very end. Bottom line: You'll have to learn PowerShell and Windows Server management cmdlets.
