jamesfed (14th June 2011)
This one with 3.5" drives I think:
can't remember if it is the 2500 or the 3500.
Last edited by SYNACK; 14th June 2011 at 08:02 PM.
jamesfed (14th June 2011)
Oooh, I'm intrigued! Could I ask a few questions? Is it a fully-managed box with its own 'SAN OS' and do you get a web interface, etc. or does it have to be managed from software on a dedicated host? What physical connectivity do you have out to hosts/rest of the network (Gig copper, 10GbE copper, FC) and what protocols are you using for connectivity (SMB/NFS/iSCSI)? Is it silly money or under £50k?Originally Posted by SYNACK
I have worked with virtualisation for many years, and the one thing I would say is there are many ways to do vitualisation and the main factor is how much money do you want to throw at it.
I went through a similar process at my current school last year, the setup i did was as follows.
1 x MSA2324 Dual contoller FC connected
2 x FC switches (FC8 capable but running at FC4 as we dont need FC8, and some cost savings were made here)
4 x Dell Poweredge R710 (Dual Hex-core, 32GB memory - but configured that we can upgrade to 64GB if needed without having to replace any existing memory)
Each server comes with 4 inbuilt GBit NICs but we added another 4 ports
Dual port FC4 HBA in 3 servers, all dual pathed (via each switch)
Switch Dual pathed to SAN (4 conenctions - each switch to each Host adapter)
These 3 servers are running VMware ESX 4.x, so that any 1 server can fail (be taken down for maintenance and we are running as normal)
The 4th server was put in a seperate location also running VMware but with a ton of local disk space.
We use this 4th server as a failover server, we have our 2nd DC permantly runing here as a single server.
We use Vizioncore vRanger to backup images and then we replicate them across the network to the backup server.
In the event of a SAN failure we know that we could not bring them all up, but we can bring up the essential services for the schools to run (AD, DNS, DHCP, MIS, File erver) The remaining servers are there but would not be brought up as the server wouldnt take it.
We also recently expanded our MSA2324fc with an MSA70.
Total cost was around £60K with around £20k of that in software. We could have gone cheaper, we definately could have gone more expensive.
But this solution I know works and was fit for purpose to bring the school forward in what we can deliver.
The 4th seperate server was the cheap option to putting in a second SAN. and does cover us in the event of a full SAN failure, otherwise we are covered for single part failures in any part due to full multipathing
Last edited by sandrews; 15th June 2011 at 01:16 PM.
As both questions are tied in together I'll continue to answer under the next question:
As to the money aspect we put in a system with 9*450GB 15k SAS drives and 3*2TB 7200RPM dual port SATA drives along with the HBAs and cables for less than NZD20k so in GBP without the 50% on top vendor tax we get to pay you would be looking at a reasonable amount less than 8k GBP with drives.
You can also connect more drive shelves (3 more at least I think) to add way more storage.
The HP ones may be better but were 10k more for the exact same thing and we just could not justify it however much I would have liked to as I have a feeling that the config stuff would have been many times less bloated / OSSey.
Ahh, I see! Not exactly what we're looking for then, but certainly looks like a nice solution for your requirements. I figured IBM was such a big name, might be worth seeing what they do in this area. Surprised at the cost from such an 'enterprise' company - seems very reasonable!
If it were me, I'd save the VMWare money and get a hefty HA SAN setup, Starwind do a HA software SAN you can load onto servers or buy with hardware.
I'd then use HyperV with an Enterprise edition server license, which will deliver all the enterprise functionality of HyperV, then buy in a few of the right system centre licenses and you've got a full suite of tools in an easy to manage environment (no consoles or command lines).
A couple of hosts with some 2x12 core AMD opterons and a good load of RAM and these should handle most things you can throw at it, including a host failure.
Right, think I'm honing in on the solution here. Getting companies to quote for an extra server to run a physical DC with a tape autoloader for backup (which will provide enough capacity for when the file servers go virtual), so thanks for the heads up on that one.
Key question now, I think, is Hyper-V or VMWare. I expect plenty of you have been through this one. We're about to move onto EES so I think Hyper-V will be the cheapest, we're probably only going to have 4 VMs for now which I imagine will expand but not massively (double at most), and installs will all be Win2k8 R2. I want to be able to take snapshots of the VMs to tape and backup the virtual DC system state in the same way, and easy failover in case of a host going down is essential.
On the plus side for Hyper-V is the cost, and the fact I know Windows. On the plus side for VMWare is the bare-metal approach, backups with Veeam and its general reputation as market leader. Is it worth paying the money for VMWare, or will we likely be fine with Hyper-V?
Love to you all for all your help on this, and letting me indulge my need for research <3
Hyper-V is actually bare metal, the whole nice usable core OS is actually just a special VM with much higher privilages for managment, the actual baare metal runs Hyper-V. I use Hyper-V a lot and as long as you are not heavily useing old tech (2003 SP1 or before) you should be fine. The newer OSs virtualise insanely better than the old ones as their kernals were actually designed for it, 2003 is a total dog in this respect (and thats the polite version from MS themselves).
sonofsanta (20th June 2011)
Personally I prefer VMware. I looked at Hyper-V when it came out (and granted, it's developed a lot since then) and it just seemed very backwards compared to Xen and VMware at the time. However, Hyper-V is obviously significantly cheaper, so if it's going to do what you need then go for it.
I didn't actually find this to be much of an advantage to be honest. Once you figure out VMware networking it's extremely easy to use, whereas Hyper-V seemed a bit illogical.On the plus side for Hyper-V is the cost, and the fact I know Windows.
i use a power script to export the VMs at 1am to a nas server it dont take long over a gig link, then have it email me saying it done.
if i dont get a compleated email then i go and check it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)