Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
Sure, but I can fit that much storage into a single server and be within the tolerances set by the OP.
So while he is downsizing to 2 servers, 1 is all that he might actually require. Assuming SA is good enough.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
There is no reasoning as to why the OP thinks he needs a SAN other than it's what he had before and is familiar with. So that reason right there is a "red herring" and immediately means he should welcome outside review before purchasing anything.
Assuming he had 100 TB of storage across 3 servers he could go with scale or starwind's vsan and still be way better off than with the SAN.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
Sure, but I can fit that much storage into a single server and be within the tolerances set by the OP.
So while he is downsizing to 2 servers, 1 is all that he might actually require. Assuming SA is good enough.
The point was the statement you made was definitive statement without any relation to the OP. If you said "in this case" fine. But it was just a blanket statement.
-
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
Sure, but I can fit that much storage into a single server and be within the tolerances set by the OP.
So while he is downsizing to 2 servers, 1 is all that he might actually require. Assuming SA is good enough.
The point was the statement you made was definitive statement without any relation to the OP. If you said "in this case" fine. But it was just a blanket statement.
Semantic police are in force today. . . .
-
@DustinB3403 FFS, the size of the data has nothing to do with the need for a SAN.
If you need more data than you can fit in a 4U box, then you buy a DAS to connect to your box to get more storage. Or you look at multiple boxes with local storage and then a vSAN or something to get the storage amount you need.
You use a SAN when you need lots of hosts on the same set of data.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@stacksofplates said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Potential IPOD in the works for a mere 43TB.
Mere?
Someone's perspective seems odd.
Really it is a mere 43TB. Not until you're in the 100's of TB range should SAN's even be considered. Which this is where you start to reach the limit of single servers.
The size of data isn't really a limiting factor. It's the number of hosts that need to share the storage.
Sure, but I can fit that much storage into a single server and be within the tolerances set by the OP.
So while he is downsizing to 2 servers, 1 is all that he might actually require. Assuming SA is good enough.
The point was the statement you made was definitive statement without any relation to the OP. If you said "in this case" fine. But it was just a blanket statement.
Semantic police are in force today. . . .
No, you are wrong and are being called out on it.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 FFS, the size of the data has nothing to do with the need for a SAN.
If you need more data than you can fit in a 4U box, then you buy a DAS to connect to your box to get more storage. Or you look at multiple boxes with local storage and then a vSAN or something to get the storage amount you need.
You use a SAN when you need lots of hosts on the same set of data.
Of which he's said he doesn't need a lot of hosts, since he is downsizing. FFS!
He even said "1250 iops should be more than enough" which is indicative that he isn't doing dick with the underlying storage.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 FFS, the size of the data has nothing to do with the need for a SAN.
If you need more data than you can fit in a 4U box, then you buy a DAS to connect to your box to get more storage. Or you look at multiple boxes with local storage and then a vSAN or something to get the storage amount you need.
You use a SAN when you need lots of hosts on the same set of data.
Of which he's said he doesn't need a lot of hosts, since he is downsizing. FFS!
He even said "1250 iops should be more than enough" which is indicative that he isn't doing dick with the underlying storage.
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
No, as long as your answer includes a capacity number (in TB) no one is going to agree with the statement. There is no capacity number, large or small, that makes a SAN more or less likely.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
So *** off, all of ya. . . shit.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
So f*** off, all of ya. . . shit.
But the original thread has nothing to do with it...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
But then why state the red herring as the reason instead of the actual reason? the reason is "two hosts", nothing to do with the capacity number, but you implied that a large capacity number would make a SAN make sense, even just for one host.
-
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
