New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster
-
@PhlipElder will look into that as well.
-
@manxam said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
@PhlipElder : Not intimately familiar with SW's vSAN only having tried it a few times years ago, but I assume you're suggesting using the servers for compute and HP for storage? Doesn't that completely eliminate HA as you now have a single point of failure that will affect 3 servers?
Absolutely no one here has or will suggest anything that involved external high risk storage. All of us are trying to get you to some form of hyperconvergence which by definition means that the storage is local and shared.
-
-
Meh, I don’t see the issue. Those are just standard Dell servers, oldie in truth. Sell it in bundle and buy a new R740 with mission critical support. You can get a very convenient quote that include VMware and Veeam. The latest Veeam (9.5u4) can do native S3 (and S3-like) archive tiering and support direct restore to both Azure and AWS.
If we’re talking about steady-state workloads, on-premise or colo is always cheaper than IaaS. Oh, don’t forget that with the new iDrac/iLO you can treat the server effectively as a colo machine with all the good stuff like remote KVM, proactive support, remote automated installation etc., all with good html5 interface. Yes, that crappy activex/java is gone. -
@Francesco-Provino the issue he needs something today, and that won't cost him anything today.
It is a good option for sure but I don't believe he is wanting to spend money. But if he was going to look at purchasing something with warranty, look at xbyte.com
-
@Francesco-Provino said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
Meh, I don’t see the issue. Those are just standard Dell servers, oldie in truth. Sell it in bundle and buy a new R740 with mission critical support. You can get a very convenient quote that include VMware and Veeam. The latest Veeam (9.5u4) can do native S3 (and S3-like) archive tiering and support direct restore to both Azure and AWS.
If we’re talking about steady-state workloads, on-premise or colo is always cheaper than IaaS. Oh, don’t forget that with the new iDrac/iLO you can treat the server effectively as a colo machine with all the good stuff like remote KVM, proactive support, remote automated installation etc., all with good html5 interface. Yes, that crappy activex/java is gone.If he sells what he has, he has nothing to run on in the mean time
-
So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.
-
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.
Why do you have one then?
-
I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.
-
@mroth911 you've yet to state why you need all of this uptime, besides from the sunk cost issues that have been discussed.
It would be cheaper for you to just turn off the power on these systems and host them on a service like Vultr and literally sell all of your equipment.
-
@DustinB3403 I can not do that!. I have two 5 year terms with fiber. It would lost me like 80k per ISP to cancel.
-
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.
So it was highly recommended 3 years ago, and now it's no longer what you need? I don't understand how you could afford it three years ago, but not now? Is your income lower now than 3 years ago?
-
@mroth911 but you can continue to afford the electric, cooling and internet for this business?
You can not liquidate everything, move the hosting to something cheaper than what you can provide yourself and save money in the long haul?
Really? It makes more fiscal sense to setup, manage, maintain (purchase replacement parts) and pay for warranty on your own hardware than it does to send this off to a vps or cloud provider.
Seriously, WTF.
-
@Dashrender said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.
So it was highly recommended 3 years ago, and now it's no longer what you need? I don't understand how you could afford it three years ago, but not now? Is your income lower now than 3 years ago?
If he is making less money than he was 3 years ago, he should liquidate as quickly as possible and find cheaper and better alternatives to hosting his clients cpanel websites on-premise.
This topic is so F'd.
-
Listen guys things have changed in my life that with out me air my dirty laundry out here forbid me to do what is considered "Industry Standard". This is something that I would like to do. I totally get you guys are right on liquidating my stuff. I am not going to get nearly what i would get to pay off the charges of canceling the contracts. For me to move my clients off my machines would be very time consuming. I will no longer post! forget the topic.
-
No one has said to cancel the contracts, not for the fiber or power or any of it.
We've recommended you simply don't host any of this locally.
Migrating what is a VM already today to a cloud provider is a few minute process at best.
Does it add some cost? Sure but you will save that cost by having the server room lights turned off. AC set to a not so cold temp, power for the servers.
You're still fucked when it comes to the contracts for the next 5 years.
But moving these to a better alternative will be better for you, less effort for you, less cost for you (hardware, electricity, cooling).
-
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.
Yeah, that's what I was saying. You can't sell one and wait to get another. You'd have a service gap of an indefinite time in between.
That's correct, Scale is not a hosting platform. All hyperconvergence is built for LOB apps. Modern web apps should never be on hyperconvergence.
The problem here is that your oVirt proposed solution is the same as the Scale, though. It's built with the same limitations and goals.
-
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.
They are absolutely fantastic. But not for that kind of use case.
Did you ask for advice that included high availability at the platform level? Or advice on how to design a full hosting business?
The reason that I ask is because if you asked the former, they are easily the best advice. But that question doesn't suit the needs of the latter.
I suspect that this wasn't asked correct because of how this thread was approached. You started by asking about building an oVirt cluster... which is going down the same path as the Scale. It might be okay for your needs, but it isn't really stepping back and addressing the needs fully, even within the scope of what you have assuming that you are doing something like web hosting.
If you are hosting modern web apps, then none of this makes sense. If you have to use the equipment that you have, and you are doing web hosting with something like LAMP or MEAN, for example, then no hyperconverged system is going to make any sense. It's not built for that.
So part of the issue even now is that you are holding back the critical information that someone would need to give full advice. We don't know the necessary details to really help. We understand that you have certain hardware limitations, financial needs, need to not be down, etc. But that's not enough to help guide you to what is a logical way to use what is at your disposal going forward.
From what I can tell, a proper clustered database and failover web front end is what you need. No platform cluster, no VM failover. Those concepts aren't appropriate for the assumed web hosting need.
-
@DustinB3403 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
@mroth911 you've yet to state why you need all of this uptime, besides from the sunk cost issues that have been discussed.
It would be cheaper for you to just turn off the power on these systems and host them on a service like Vultr and literally sell all of your equipment.
That's probably not true. He should price that out, but if he is running 24 web hosts, likely on Vultr the cost would be absurd. Cloud is not as cheap as people think. Given that he is stuck with the links, already has the power, and already has hardware, chances are he is saving a thousand a month or more by not switching to cloud.
Now, once his contracts are up, different story.
-
@Dashrender said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
@mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:
I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.
So it was highly recommended 3 years ago, and now it's no longer what you need? I don't understand how you could afford it three years ago, but not now? Is your income lower now than 3 years ago?
It was clearly wrong three years ago. I'd bet he had investment money three years ago, and now he is operating out of operational revenue. Totally normal situation. Likely the expectations of the investments weren't met and operating revenue is lower than anticipated.
That it was recommended by someone doesn't suggest that it was the right choice (sounds like we know for sure that it wasn't), nor do we know that it was recommended for the current situation. Too many unknowns.
