What makes a system HCI?
-
@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:
the word Infrastructure is CRITICAL in this case...
Upvote for this.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
When I look on vendor sites, HCI does not appear to be the above. HCI/HCA is sold as some complex proprietary system with specialized software running servers as blocks which can be combined to make the whole stack...
RIght. You explain everything right there..
- Vendor
- Sold As
Buying a concept vs. what the concept actually is are totally different things. Use operating systems as an example. Defining what an operating system is one thing. But if you only look to vendors who SELL OSes (MS, Apple), you'd get a very skewed view because only profitable, marketable, available products are presented, not concepts.
So you are filtering what you are seeing and, of course, it has to include aspects that make it something to sell. If you look at FREE HCI solutions, you'll get totally different results.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
can I only get HCI through a vendor like Dell VXRail, or Nutanix, or Scale, using specially designed appliances?
Yes, because those are APPLIANCE VENDORS.
Imagine if you went to a taco stand and asked for food. They'd sell you tacos. Then you go to ANOTHER taco stand, they also sell tacos. Now you conclude that all food is tacos. It's easy to see why that's wrong.
But that's what you are doing here. You aren't looking at HCI consultants, you are go to appliance vendors and asking them what HCI appliances that they have. So you've pre-filtered the HCI offerings down to commercial appliances.
-
@Pete-S said in What makes a system HCI?:
Also, I don't think "Hyper" in hyperconverged has anything to do with hypervisor. It's just another word for "very much" or "super" or "ultra".
That's correct. HCI is "more converged" than more traditional CI. CI still assumed, as ALL production computing has for decades, that it would be virtualized. There's no industry standard architecture for non-virtual since the 1990s.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
That does make total sense. One discussion staff keep having internally is that HCAs from vendors have 1 x NIC only. Therefore, if a server has 2 x NIC, or more, it cannot be HCI... which I think is total bull.
I don't know any vendor that has only one NIC. None. We deal with this every day and we are often talking about 4-12 NICs!
-
@Pete-S said in What makes a system HCI?:
So on HCI I think most people agree that you need to have:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationNot virtualization, just convergence. Most HCI doesn't virtualize anything but compute.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
To put this simply, every server that has compute and storage in the box is hyperconverged.
The "one brick" model. Yes, standard standalone servers are single node HCI. No one talks about it, because it's so obvious and silly, but it is absolutely true. People only care about it being HCI vs something else when it is two or more because then it gets challenging.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Pete-S said in What makes a system HCI?:
So on HCI I think most people agree that you need to have:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationNot virtualization, just convergence. Most HCI doesn't virtualize anything but compute.
really? they just use shared storage? shared storage that might be replicated for failover... Ok that makes sense, no requirement to virtualize the storage... cool.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
To put this simply, every server that has compute and storage in the box is hyperconverged.
Buy* any server off of a shelf that is "self-contained" and you have a hyperconverged server. The value add in an HCI solution is the programming that allows you to take 2,3,4 or more of those servers and just plug them in and use it all as one large server.
So any host in the environment could go down, and while you'd have reduced capacity, the environment would simply move the workload to other available resources.
That is what I have always in my mind for HCI. Am I right in saying the value add can be done by say a Windows Failover Cluster over all nodes, which make use of vSAN storage? Like the HCA appliances vendors sell, the failover cluster provides the function to move VMs should a node fail, right? The vendor tech isnt some magic box which invalidates other solutions excluding such technology from being HCI?
Correct. Vendors have no say in what is or isn't an architecture. Remember, vendors are manufacturers, not IT gods who determine what is or isn't something. They aren't even IT companies. IT determines what IT is.
WIndows Failover Cluster with a vSAN is a standard (if crappy) HCI option for sure.
-
@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Pete-S said in What makes a system HCI?:
So on HCI I think most people agree that you need to have:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationNot virtualization, just convergence. Most HCI doesn't virtualize anything but compute.
really? they just use shared storage? shared storage that might be replicated for failover... Ok that makes sense, no requirement to virtualize the storage... cool.
There's absolutely no requirement for virtualizing the storage. In fact, virtual storage isn't even a thing
In the storage world, virtualization refers to RAID, RAIN, and LVM which, isn't what anyone means and why it's a term absolutely never used. All real storage is virtualized for real, but it's so ridiculous to say, that we just say that there's no concept of virtualization in storage. -
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
To put this simply, every server that has compute and storage in the box is hyperconverged.
Buy* any server off of a shelf that is "self-contained" and you have a hyperconverged server. The value add in an HCI solution is the programming that allows you to take 2,3,4 or more of those servers and just plug them in and use it all as one large server.
So any host in the environment could go down, and while you'd have reduced capacity, the environment would simply move the workload to other available resources.
That is what I have always in my mind for HCI. Am I right in saying the value add can be done by say a Windows Failover Cluster over all nodes, which make use of vSAN storage? Like the HCA appliances vendors sell, the failover cluster provides the function to move VMs should a node fail, right? The vendor tech isnt some magic box which invalidates other solutions excluding such technology from being HCI?
Windows Failover Clustering isn't seemless (you'd know if you lost a host). vSAN is storage only (generally). @scale makes HCI environments where you can take a host right out of the environment and things will just chug along.
As for your second question I'm not sure what you're asking regarding vendor tech being magic. Magic is simply something we don't understand yet.
I understand. So, since WFC is not seamless if a host is removed, that means its not HCI? Not arguing, just trying to understand where the line is.
So, if removing a node != seamless, then solution != HCI?
HCI doesn't imply HA. There's very little value to it without HA, so no vendor sells that. That's where the profits are. But even with no failover whatsoever, seamless or not, it's still HCI. Crappy HCI, but HCI.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Oh, missed the second part. By magic I mean the vendor talk where I keep hearing you just plug in another HCA unit to expand resources. You don't need to understand whats happening under the hood, you just need to drop some cash and plug the next node in to the HCA to grow. That is what I meant by magic.
That's automation of HCI. It's what makes it really, really nice. But it's not HCI itself.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Just had a look on the VXRail spec pages and that also allows for expanding network cards for capacity/failures. So that helps my argument at least.
Your argument to avoid VXRail?
If you are shopping for HCI your short list should be Scale, Starwind, and maybe Simplivity.
Your absolute never, ever, ever even talk to them or let anyone who sells them ever through your door is Nutanix.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
And loads of people do. I've been doing it in production for almost 20 years. We used to use things like DRBD for it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Oh, missed the second part. By magic I mean the vendor talk where I keep hearing you just plug in another HCA unit to expand resources. You don't need to understand whats happening under the hood, you just need to drop some cash and plug the next node in to the HCA to grow. That is what I meant by magic.
That's automation of HCI. It's what makes it really, really nice. But it's not HCI itself.
Yeah - I thought this when others were saying the "tooling" was a requirement of HCI... uh.. nope, not a requirement.. but a definite nice/want to have.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
What I am trying to get an insight in to is..... if the system does not do the above, does that mean the system is not HCI?
HCI does not, in any way, imply that it does what Scale HC3 can do. Scale HC3 is high end of HCI solutions. If everything that Scale did was required for things to be HCI, no one but Scale would be making HCI!
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?
You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.
Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?
Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."
How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualizationBecause no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
if the system does not do the above, does that mean the system is not HCI?
No, one does not mean that the other HCI solutions aren't HCI. It just means that the tooling isn't there / included.
Different HCI solutions can have different features.
Ok gotcha. Thats what I suspected. I do see the value of such solutions, but I am trying to understand why my teams are arguing one solution is HCI, and the other is not. Where the only real difference is this tooling.
HCI is all about the tooling. Without the full stack tooling, it cannot really be HCI. Just cobbled together pieces of hardware that might mimic HCI.
So HCI can only be obtained by purchasing a solution from vendors like Dell, Scale, Nutanix, VMWare?
Simply then, if the solution is not some proprietary tech from a company like that it will never be HCI, as it does not have the tooling?That's what vendors want to sell you. The vendors work hard to promote this "special sauce" vision of whatever products are out there. We went through the same crap with SANs if you remember. People were convinced that it was the bells and gimmicks, not the tech, that made something a SAN. But in reality, every USB hard drive is as much a SAN as an EMC Clariion.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
Proxmox offers Hyperconvergence and HCI if you have multiple hosts in the same pool. This is free and open source (and clearly isn't propietary).
If you wanted to test it setup 3 servers and go to town.
Yup, ProxMox is an HCI offering. XCP-NG / XO is one. Straight Linux will do it. Ubuntu offers a couple options right in the OS. Windows offers one. Starwind offers components to build one on top of other things. ANd on and on.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:
So HCI can only be obtained by purchasing a solution from vendors like Dell, Scale, Nutanix, VMWare?
Simply then, if the solution is not some proprietary tech from a company like that it will never be HCI, as it does not have the tooling?What? No.
Of course not, the linux community could (and likely are working on) an HCI solution right now.
HCI != ProprietaryIts about having the tooling, not the provider of the tooling.
Ok, I can take that on board. So... let me rephrase with that in mind...
Is this correct to say then: If the system does not have the tooling on top of the hardware it cannot be HCI.
Correct?
You don't need tooling to be HCI. You need tooling for HCI to have any particular value.
