Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?
-
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
My question is - do you have actual HA because you have two servers?
No, just having 2 servers doesn't mean it is HA.
LOL - so - do you have HA? or do you just have two servers cause of the 'eggs in one basket' thinking?
I did have VCSA when that was a thing. It was discontinued and due to storage constraints, we had to move away from that. I am looking to do starwind on these though.
What are you using for the HA setup? VMWare?
I do use vmware for hypervisor and vcenter server, but doesn't starwind do HA?
They do. Or a portion of it, technically. Requires both Starwind and VMware together to make it work in that situation.
Move away from VMware and you get HA at the platform layer for free.
Hmmm. What vmware tier do you have to have for that to function?
At a minimum, Essentials Plus. Not sure if more is needed or not. Lacking basic features like HA without paying huge premiums is one of the biggest reasons to avoid VMware. Their tech is great, but all the important bits that are great are unaffordable. You don't even get support until you get to the expensive tiers!
Cool. Already have Essentials Plus. Support for 6 sockets is about a grand a year. Maybe a tiny bit more.
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
What does support mean in this case - as in you can make several support calls a year? or simply the ability to call in and pay for support when you do?
I figured $1109 would be for software maintenance - i.e. updates to new versions yearly, but no actual support - that you'd have to pay additional for (think MS Windows Server).
https://www.vmware.com/support/services/production.html
Describes the support you get. -
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
My question is - do you have actual HA because you have two servers?
No, just having 2 servers doesn't mean it is HA.
LOL - so - do you have HA? or do you just have two servers cause of the 'eggs in one basket' thinking?
I did have VCSA when that was a thing. It was discontinued and due to storage constraints, we had to move away from that. I am looking to do starwind on these though.
What are you using for the HA setup? VMWare?
I do use vmware for hypervisor and vcenter server, but doesn't starwind do HA?
They do. Or a portion of it, technically. Requires both Starwind and VMware together to make it work in that situation.
Move away from VMware and you get HA at the platform layer for free.
Hmmm. What vmware tier do you have to have for that to function?
At a minimum, Essentials Plus. Not sure if more is needed or not. Lacking basic features like HA without paying huge premiums is one of the biggest reasons to avoid VMware. Their tech is great, but all the important bits that are great are unaffordable. You don't even get support until you get to the expensive tiers!
Cool. Already have Essentials Plus. Support for 6 sockets is about a grand a year. Maybe a tiny bit more.
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
What does support mean in this case - as in you can make several support calls a year? or simply the ability to call in and pay for support when you do?
I figured $1109 would be for software maintenance - i.e. updates to new versions yearly, but no actual support - that you'd have to pay additional for (think MS Windows Server).
https://www.vmware.com/support/services/production.html
Describes the support you get.Yeah, it's not unlimited, but it is quite good.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.
I get it. But they really do make a decent product in Hyper-V. It's not KVM, but it's definitely functional.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.
I get it. But they really do make a decent product in Hyper-V. It's not KVM, but it's definitely functional.
When I first started virtualizing this place almost 9 years ago, Hyper-V lacked some of the features and capabilities VMware had, even in the lower tier offerings. The reason I like Hyper-V, is that over the years, it has increased its feature-set and capability enough to force VMware to respond by lowering prices, including previously paid features for "free" and even changing their pricing models to compete with Hyper-V.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
When I first started virtualizing this place almost 9 years ago, Hyper-V lacked some of the features and capabilities VMware had, even in the lower tier offerings.
Oh yeah, it sucked back then.
-
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
True. But don't need a VM for that at all with Hyper-V. That's a nice feature.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
True. But don't need a VM for that at all with Hyper-V. That's a nice feature.
That is also true. lol
-
Maybe I will play around with it after I upgrade my environment.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
I haven't played around with VMware much. How does it work with vCenter? Does run in a VM on each hypervisor or on one hypervisor, or do you need it on completely separate hardware?
-
@Pete-S said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
I haven't played around with VMware much. How does it work with vCenter? Does run in a VM on each hypervisor or completely separate from the hypervisors?
It is a virtual appliance. You can upgrade and migrate from an existing Windows version. You can run it on a single server.
