| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
timberk
Major Contributor
USA
786 Posts
Status: offline |
 Posted - 07/12/2012 : 5:32:55 PM
|
I've been reading a number of Aidan's blog posts about the new storage capabilities in WS2k12.There is a lot of new functionality in the area of storage.
http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12167
My question is: Do any of the new storage capabilities in Windows Server 2012 change how Hyper-V should be deployed in small businesses? I mean really small - like under 50 employees and maybe 8 to 15 virtual machines.
My employer (a small company) is getting ready to move to a new physical location in the same town. Server hardware upgrades will be budgeted as part of the move. The move will likely occur shortly after RTM and I'd really like to take advantage of some of the new storage tech in Server 2012. Most of the new storage stuff (Scale Out File Server, Converged Fabrics and etc) appears to be geared (understandably) toward large enterprises. Presently, we use W2k8 Enterprise SP2 as our Hyper-V host. Most of the disk storage is local to the server, but we do have a small iSCSI SAN attached. I'd like to move on to Windows Server 2012 DataCenter (on new hardware) for our Hyper-V host machine. I'm still trying to understand the best storage configuration for our environment.
Any suggestions on how to leverage this stuff for small business? Or should I be content with a standalone Hyper-V host?
I wasn't quite sure where to post this. It could have gone in the All Things Virtual or Storage subforums. Mods - feel free to move it as deemed appropriate.
Thanks in advance,
~tb
|
|
|
wobble_wobble
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
4523 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/12/2012 : 6:59:37 PM
|
There is a performance hit to be taken by using storage spaces over using dedicated hardware/ appliance for storage.
What do you currently have?
What is left on its warranty?
What can it expand to?
What do you think you will gain by moving from a dedicated device to storage spaces?
What performance are you currently getting? (Use MAPs)
What performance do you think you will need?
Storage spaces has a performance hit on the versions I have seen of 25% to 60% over dedicated devices. This is getting better, but not the same. 10GB networking will bring it closer...but the 10GB network costs.
This is comparing performance against
a RAID card and 4 disks - Raid 10
a RAID card and 4 disks - Raid 5
Storage Spaces and 4 disks mirrored
Storage Spaces and 4 disks parity
|
Joe
After everything that has happened during the month of Jan 07, I do believe that pigs fly backwards!
http://whatismyv6.com/ |
 |
|
|
timberk
Major Contributor
USA
786 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/12/2012 : 7:36:10 PM
|
Hi Joe,
Our current Hyper-V host is a SuperMicro 6015B-3RB.
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1u/6015/sys-6015b-3r.cfm
We've been running it in production for better than 5.5 years and the warranty is a faded memory. It ran MS Virtual Server, prior to the advent of Hyper-V. Performance is adequate for the four VMs it currently hosts on local disks and SAN storage. This machine definitely on it's way to being test lab hardware.
Local 10k or 15k SAS disks give great performance, but you're constrained by the number of disks the server chassis will hold. The two areas where I'm concerned or looking for improvement is: - Single point of failure with a stand alone Hyper-V host. I could tell war stories, about times this has been a problem. Not to mention Patch Tuesdays
- Adequate disk space with suitable IO performance for future company growth. Processors and memory always seem easier to plan for. It's the disk IO/number of spindles that are usually the bottleneck.
This doesn't answer all your questions, but its a start.
Thanks for the input.
~tb
|
|
|
|
NMDANGE
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
USA
2063 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/12/2012 : 7:50:29 PM
|
RE: Patch Tuesdays, remember one of the new features of Hyper-V 3.0 is shared-nothing live migration. So with 2 standalone hosts, you can move your VMs between the 2 for host maintenance.
Of course that doesn't help for HA.
You'll need a cluster either way. I don't think using SMB helps that much. So 2 Hyper-V hosts. You can do 1Gbps iSCSI pretty cheap, or you could look at shared SAS storage which would be 6Gbps. I like the Dell PowerVault MD3220, up to 4 attached hosts, redundant storage controller, and a single unit can have additional enclosures added, room for plenty of disk drives for growth. |
Michael D'Angelo
(former)MVP-MIIS, Pace University Senior Systems Administrator (Windows)
(MS)NMDANGE
PhoeniX WorX Systems Administrator. If you play Total Annihilation, please join us. http://www.phoenixworx.org |
|
|
|
anthony
Moderator
USA
2373 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/12/2012 : 8:12:39 PM
|
I'm kinda in the same boat, and I have similar questions on hardware... But MY question is more about licensing. It's a little unclear in the literature...
I get that with Standard, you get to run a HOST and TWO VMs with that license. And I get the Datacenter setup too. What they don't answer (or make clear) is what if I'm bringing existing (non-OEM) licenses. I got 12 physical servers I want to get into Hyper-V, I already bought 12 copies of standard (some 2003 and some 2008) when I bought the servers.
What would be nice is to Buy 2 copies of Standard, then P2V my physical servers to 2 different servers (6 on each).
Is that legal? If not, what do I do with those old licenses? Are they garbage? |
anthony
There should be only one World's Greatest Dad shirt. And you should have to kill the previous owner to wear it.
|
Edited by - anthony on 07/12/2012 8:13:27 PM |
|
|
|
JeffWouters
Here To Stay
Netherlands
149 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/13/2012 : 04:24:04 AM
|
When using Hyper-V I always go for high availability, so more than 1 host.
For a company with about 15 VM's, I would go with 2 hosts and in w2k12 you can use Replica.
In othr words, use local storage and use replica to replicate the VM's to and from both nodes... very cheap (compared to a SAN) and I think replica is a solution for small/medium businesses that want to avoid the huge costs of a SAN. |
Greetsz,
Jeff. |
|
|
|
wobble_wobble
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
4523 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/13/2012 : 04:50:05 AM
|
Jeff,
Can I ask for some maths on that, local storage against shared, especially as Michael mentioned a MD3XXX.
15 Guests, say 100GB a piece.
Disk IOPS - maybe 300 per machine (rough)
Thats 1.5TB space across 2 hosts
4500 Disk IOPS across 2 hosts, plus add in rep traffic.
Thats a lot of expensive disk into 2 hosts, is it not?
Sorry, I see the benefit in some instances.....but I'm having a hard time understanding it when you go above say 5 guests on the small side or have more than say 10 hosts, maybe 30 to 50 guests per host on the bigger side.
|
Joe
After everything that has happened during the month of Jan 07, I do believe that pigs fly backwards!
http://whatismyv6.com/ |
|
|
|
wobble_wobble
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
4523 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/13/2012 : 05:14:06 AM
|
Anthony,
The licenses are good, if they are Retail or higher.
BUT - retail only allows moves every 90 days (Not sure how replicas are dealt with as!)
I have to say, as we enter more and more into virtual environments, buying VL licensing makes more sense allowing migrations to/ from at will.
|
Joe
After everything that has happened during the month of Jan 07, I do believe that pigs fly backwards!
http://whatismyv6.com/ |
|
|
|
timberk
Major Contributor
USA
786 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/13/2012 : 4:22:12 PM
|
Thanks all, for the feedback - it's much appreciated.
Based on what I've learned so far, I'm leaning toward two Hyper-V hosts with shared storage of some sort. Michael's pointer to the Dell PowerVault MD3220 is appealing.
Shared-nothing Live Migration/Live Storage Migration versus Hyper-V replica is an interesting comparison. I'm not convinced either one is right for my application, though......
http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12147
and
http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12136
I'll post back as the situation develops.
~tb |
|
|
|
Pesos
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
USA
3519 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 07/21/2012 : 12:19:06 AM
|
+1 for the dell md3xxx. We have ben running two two-node clusters on used md3000 boxes (sas) that we picked up supercheap on ebay - was able to get spare power supplies and controllers and even a spare chassis (so really a whole other functional box if we wanted).
Recently picked up a md3200 and upgraded one of our installations - noticeably faster and a much bigger HCL as far as the drives go. Very happy.
Not sure of your budget, but we have one ultra-budget-conscious client who had an existing T710: we added a cheap md3000 and an OptiPlex 990 (sata raid 1) which takes 32 GB of memory (despite dell only saying 16) for a 2 node cluster. |
-Wes |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Server 2012 Hyper-V storage config suggestions?
