Posts made by creayt

@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?

The virtual machine(s).

You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.

Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.

That's fine. Virtualization changes nothing. You need to back up nothing more. If you sense any additional needs with VMs, that means you have those needs today but are failing ot meet them. So you are likely discovering holes in your backup and recovery strategy that are bothering you, but you didn't realize until we mentioned the virtualization. But literally anything that works today will continue to work virtualized.

Just to be clear, assuming a requirement is Windows, specifically what you all are suggesting is that

Instead of using the host OS, I turn on Hyper V and use a single virtual machine per server and keep all other things identical?

You never want to enable the hyper-v role.

Download Hyper-v from the website, its completely free and is current. You'd be turning on an old version of Hyper-V which makes no sense.

Do you mean Hyper V Server? The standalone thingee?

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?

The virtual machine(s).

You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.

Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.

That's fine. Virtualization changes nothing. You need to back up nothing more. If you sense any additional needs with VMs, that means you have those needs today but are failing ot meet them. So you are likely discovering holes in your backup and recovery strategy that are bothering you, but you didn't realize until we mentioned the virtualization. But literally anything that works today will continue to work virtualized.

Just to be clear, assuming a requirement is Windows, specifically what you all are suggesting is that

Instead of using the host OS, I turn on Hyper V and use a single virtual machine per server and keep all other things identical?

And in addition to the more abstract, general benefits you all believe in, some of which Scott has listed, the benefit you see is that I could potentially, in the case of a failure, if the virtual machine happened to live on a RAID array that wasn't the one that failed, copy that virtual machine to another host and just set it in motion rather than having to configure a new Host OS set up, presuming I had already configured another Host OS set up to move it to, right? Trying to put all of these ideas in concrete terms because I'm interested in learning, not challenging what you're saying with my questions, just trying to comprehend it all. I know you all are seasoned experts.

Thanks for all of the help btw.

@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?

The virtual machine(s).

Ok but how long does it take you to stand up your new physical server should it shit the bed?

What happens if you lose 1 host, and everything migrates over. While you're restoring the down host, if the working one shits the bed, then what?

The host OS is on a Raid 1 of two SSDs, so if both of those fail I'd have to replace them and reinstall the OS.

Installing the host OS takes about 10 minutes on this hardware based on doing it yesterday for benchmarking. Setting up the serveware takes me about 10 minutes.

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?

The virtual machine(s).

You are already backing those up. That's what you are backing up now. So nothing new.

Sorry, think I mispoke. I'm not backing anything up but the MySQL data files and the image uploads.

@dashrender said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

What extra things do you think you need to backup with virtualization?

The virtual machine(s).

@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.

THat's correct.

No, that is not correct.

@creayt a single license covers dual 8 core processors. You will need two more 2 core pack licenses for the decacore box.

There is no 2 core pack for 2012 R2.

He cannot buy 2012 R2 anymore. You can only buy 2016. He can install 2012 R2 as that is perfectly allowed, but he has to buy and appropriately license 2016.

You can't buy 2012 R2 anymore? They have it on Amazon and NewEgg, don't they?

@jaredbusch said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.

THat's correct.

No, that is not correct.

@creayt a single license covers dual 8 core processors. You will need two more 2 core pack licenses for the decacore box.

That's what I was saying. That's only true for 2016. On 2012 it's per-processor, not per core.

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

Can't be less easy. Not possible. Literally, it's impossible to be less easy. Because ANY option you have with physical you retain with virtual, but with virtual you have more.

By less easy I just mean less work, less things to back up. I'd still need to back up the same things with virtualization that I will without, but with virtualization there are additional things to back up is all I mean. Easy was a poor choice of words, sorry.

@scottalanmiller said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

Can't be less easy. Can be the same or easier. You lose nothing, only gain options.

Less easy because without virtualization all I have to back up are a folder of images and a small handful of MySQL data files. Adding virtualization for the benefits I perceive peeps here to be championing would require backing up the entire VMs, which is less easy not to mention a much much bigger backup footprint, no? What am I missing?

@dustinb3403 said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:

@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware

The overhead of a hypervisor shouldn't even be a consideration. There is literally 0 benefit to doing this. You could use a hypervisor and have a true HA setup so if a node takes a nose dive, everything is instantly (I mean instantly) up on another node.

You wouldn't even have time to blink.

Can you walk me through how you're envisioning that working? I can't reconcile it to the description of the set up for this project. I presume you're talking about setting up Hyper V replicas or something, but because I'm dealing w/ two production boxes that are already actively sharing the workload the failover wouldn't be any different from the user's perspective, and will require the same replacement of the failed drive with or without virtualization.

@dashrender "Easier backups", how so? Seems less-easy.

@dashrender Would actually be less-easy failover in this instance, no?

@dashrender Some reasons not to for this project:

Performance goals
Time to restore a failed server would increase w/ virtualization ( extra thing to configure )
One less thing to manage
Easier scaling licensewise

@dashrender If anyone can name a single benefit of virtualizing given my description of this project's goals and needs I'll be very impressed.

@dustinb3403 ? Not sure what you mean/are referring to.

About to benchmark a 5-drive Raid 5 to compare it to the Raid 0 results I've benchmarked so far. Does anyone remember if you're supposed to create the VD w/ a size that's smaller than the full capacity to redeem the benefits of over provisioning or not?

@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware

@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.

@dashrender Does that work??! If so any recommendations? These are 8 drive and 10 drive boxes so if there's a semi-affordable one that's compatible and can use the full horsepower of the drives I'd be more than down to do that.

@tim_g It'll be using the standard MySQL replication so I believe asychronously but I'm not positive.