What makes a system HCI?
-
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
So I guess my next leap from this then is what is inherently wrong with 'HCI like' setups? I can take on board that its not HCI, thats fine.
Nothing whatsoever. If they meet the needs of the business.
Thanks, this helps
-
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
A single server is hyperconverged.
An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.
-
@Jimmy9008 see the difference in the statement there?
A single server COULD be HCI if you have the tooling to manage all the things that are it, but stand-alone working servers are hyper-converged as they contain everything to function on their own.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
A single server is hyperconverged.
An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.
Yes, I agree. *If it has the cohesive tooling required to manage it. I think the thing confiusing me is when people say "A single server is hyperconverged." when actually, going by what I have ready today... they should actually say "A single server with HCI tooling is hyperconverged." - or something to that nature. I'm currently along the mindset that "A single server is hyperconverged." is incorrect. It lacks important information.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 see the difference in the statement there?
A single server COULD be HCI if you have the tooling to manage all the things that are it, but stand-alone working servers are hyper-converged as they contain everything to function on their own.
So.... is this HCI or not?
Three servers setup together as a windows failover cluster, using local storage, provided to the three node cluster via a vSAN. Everything I need is contained within the cluster. I can manage the entire cluster from windows failover cluster services. Just like the other solutions, I can lose a node and the cluster will bring up VMs on the other nodes. I can add/edit/modify vSAN/CSVs via Starwind console/powershell from within the same three nodes... It doesnt have the advanced tooling though that Scale, Nutanix, VXRail all give though...
So, its not actually HCI, right?
-
@Jimmy9008 This is poor mans HCI, because the services have to be brought online on the other servers.
This only just qualifies.
It would be like if you had several cars, if you're driving one and the engine dies, you can get to your destination still but you need to move into another car to finish the trip. (there would be noticeable delays).
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 This is poor mans HCI, because the services have to be brought online on the other servers.
This only just qualifies.
It would be like if you had several cars, if you're driving one and the engine dies, you can get to your destination still but you need to move into another car to finish the trip. (there would be noticeable delays).
I think going by what I have read today I would rather say its not HCI at all. At the start I would have said it is HCI. But now, I would say its 'HCI like, but without the advanced tooling'.
Not bad, but able to meet the business needs.
I just get confused where under one side, HCI is able to lose a car and keep driving without any delay... yet, poor mans HCI is still only just HCI. I'd rather say if the system cannot survive a failed car with 0 delay... then its not HCI. Makes things simple for me.
Unless HCI and what qualifies as HCI is simply going to be different every time depending on who you ask? It has no universal standard definition...
-
In the most general sense, HCI is considered Highly Available (five 9's worth of uptime or better) where you wouldn't notice if a single host went down for any particular reason from a workload standpoint.
in an HCI environment downtime of services supplied (VM level generally speaking) are maintained even if a host crashes and burns.
If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).
^ Why not then just say its not at all HCI? Why add any caveat. If more than 0 affect, then not HCI... no?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).
^ Why not then just say its not at all HCI? Why add any caveat. If more than 0 affect, then not HCI... no?
No, because it could be automatically started up on the other hosts in the environment. Tooling could be there. The trouble comes in when you have to consider the client needs.
If a client can't have a workload go down at all during business hours, the example above doesn't achieve this. Because the workload needs to start up on separate hardware.
But if the client can deal with "less uptime" it may be sufficient and save the client money to use poor mans HCI tooling.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).
^ Why not then just say its not at all HCI? Why add any caveat. If more than 0 affect, then not HCI... no?
No, because it could be automatically started up on the other hosts in the environment. Tooling could be there. The trouble comes in when you have to consider the client needs.
If a client can't have a workload go down at all during business hours, the example above doesn't achieve this. Because the workload needs to start up on separate hardware.
But if the client can deal with "less uptime" it may be sufficient and save the client money to use poor mans HCI tooling.
So... it is HCI, or as you say "poor mans HCI", because it has tooling, just that tooling is not as advanced as other tooling. Right?
-
Think of a windows server.
Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches.
Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason.
You need to have a way to move the services any server might host to a different server in these events. You may need to have SQL change where its looking or to have a file share always available etc.
It's more than just the car motor dying. If the AC in the car dies, this could be considered downtime, even if the car still drives.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
A single server is hyperconverged.
An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.
Yes, I agree. *If it has the cohesive tooling required to manage it. I think the thing confiusing me is when people say "A single server is hyperconverged." when actually, going by what I have ready today... they should actually say "A single server with HCI tooling is hyperconverged." - or something to that nature. I'm currently along the mindset that "A single server is hyperconverged." is incorrect. It lacks important information.
Why does hyperconverged have to mean HCI?
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Think of a windows server.
Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches.
Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason.
You need to have a way to move the services any server might host to a different server in these events. You may need to have SQL change where its looking or to have a file share always available etc.
It's more than just the car motor dying. If the AC in the car dies, this could be considered downtime, even if the car still drives.
Right at the start you literally said "every server that has compute and storage in the box is hyperconverged."
The server you just wrote about, that server... it has compute and storage in the box. So, by your first statement it is hyperconverged. Now 100 posts in you say "Think of a windows server. Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches. Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason."In my mind these conflict and both cannot be true. You say every computer with local compute and storage is hyperconverged. Yes, now you say that windows server, which has local storage and compute, is not hyperconverged....
Im probably just missing something silly. But its these types of directly conflicting things that throw me off.
-
@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.
A single server is hyperconverged.
An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.
Yes, I agree. *If it has the cohesive tooling required to manage it. I think the thing confiusing me is when people say "A single server is hyperconverged." when actually, going by what I have ready today... they should actually say "A single server with HCI tooling is hyperconverged." - or something to that nature. I'm currently along the mindset that "A single server is hyperconverged." is incorrect. It lacks important information.
Why does hyperconverged have to mean HCI?
Hyperconverged Infrastructure is why HCI stands for, no? Maybe thats the thing I have been misunderstanding...
Does HCI not mean 'Hyperconverged Infrastructure'... Like LAN means Local Area Network...
-
@Jimmy9008 Read carefully what you just stated.
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
The server you just wrote about, that server... it has compute and storage in the box. So, by your first statement it is hyperconverged. Now 100 posts in you say "Think of a windows server. Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches. Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason."
-
HCI means to ensure that whatever services you are hosting, 1 have the tooling to manage everything cohesively and 2 to be redundant to failure of any individual component.
A car is hyperconverged, but is not HCI. If the AC in the car stops working, it's still a complete car.
But it can't be HCI because there is no way to get the AC to work from some other car for the car you're in.
Make sense?
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
HCI means to ensure that whatever services you are hosting, 1 have the tooling to manage everything cohesively and 2 to be redundant to failure of any individual component.
A car is hyperconverged, but is not HCI. If the AC in the car stops working, it's still a complete car.
But it can't be HCI because there is no way to get the AC to work from some other car for the car you're in.
Make sense?
I think so. So, hyperconverged does not have to be HCI? As in, the car can be hyperconverged, but not HCI.
I literally thought the HCI acronym came from the HyperConvered Infrastructure. Meaning, I thought HCI/Hyperconverged Infrastructure are 100% the same thing. Interchangeable. So saying hyperconvergence != HCI is maybe what I am missing?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
HyperConvered Infrastructure
It does,
But again Hyperconverged != HCI (as in the car is Hyperconverged but is not HCI).
