Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VMware storage question....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VMware storage question....

    Hello,

    I'm just starting some project planning for new servers. We currently have HP blades with an HP fibre SAN and we are migrating to new hardware.

    Option 1:
    Buy 3-4 servers, run VMware and VM's on individual servers for all resources (no NAS/SAN)

    Option 2:
    Buy 3-4 servers (maybe less) buy NAS/SAN and run VM's from storage device using the servers to host the hypervisor only

    Two questions

    1. Do you foresee any issues with the above option 1 vs 2?
    2. Looking for a cost for an entry level NAS/SAN compatible with VMware.

    Money is an issue with this one but I do not want to recommend option one only to find out it fails. I know there are no specific details here, looking for general advice.

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Re: VMware storage question....

    Depending on your requirements I certainly would foresee issues when using Local storage with either performance, High Availability, Flexibility etc. Actually I think your first question should be;
    Why virtualize? Who's going to manage it? What will it bring in Opex to virtualize because buying hardware is only Capex and might be a non issue when you create a positive business case?
    And maybe then your question should be; What are the virtualization candidates?

    If all of the above questions are being answered, then you should think about hardware.
    Marcel
    Technical Consultant
    Netherlands
    http://www.phetios.com
    http://blog.nessus.nl

    MCITP(EA, SA), MCSA/E 2003:Security, CCNA, SNAF, DCUCI, CCSA/E/E+ (R60), VCP4/5, NCDA, NCIE - SAN, NCIE - BR, EMCPE
    "No matter how secure, there is always the human factor."

    "Enjoy life today, tomorrow may never come."
    "If you're going through hell, keep going. ~Winston Churchill"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: VMware storage question....

      as dumber has said, th edifference between option 1 and option 2, is the ability to migrate your guests, if you have a failure of hardware.

      for instance, if you've got 4 blades, with 4 virtual guests on each, and one of those blades dies, you can't quickly, and easily, move the guests to another blade. You'd need to move the storage as well, and being a blade, may not have the available space.
      Plus then you'd need to take that blade offline to put the storage in.

      with SAN backend (not NAS) then you can connect all the blades to a huge array of disks. Host all the machines on the shared disk, and if one blade dies, you can just move it over and logically run it on other hardware.
      Please do show your appreciation to those who assist you by leaving Rep Point https://www.petri.com/forums/core/im.../icon_beer.gif

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: VMware storage question....

        NAS can work perfectly fine. Use NFS in that case and not CIFS.
        NetApp for example is an SAN and a NAS in one box, depending on the license FC, ISCSI, NFS or CIFS is being enabled.
        Marcel
        Technical Consultant
        Netherlands
        http://www.phetios.com
        http://blog.nessus.nl

        MCITP(EA, SA), MCSA/E 2003:Security, CCNA, SNAF, DCUCI, CCSA/E/E+ (R60), VCP4/5, NCDA, NCIE - SAN, NCIE - BR, EMCPE
        "No matter how secure, there is always the human factor."

        "Enjoy life today, tomorrow may never come."
        "If you're going through hell, keep going. ~Winston Churchill"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: VMware storage question....

          Another option is to use the local storage of the servers as virtual iSCSI or NFS storage, using either the HP LeftHand VSA or the new VMware VSA:

          http://h18006.www1.hp.com/products/s...vsa/index.html

          http://www.vmware.com/products/datac.../overview.html

          You will still get HA and vMotion capability, without the storage being physically external to the servers, and both companies' VSAs will tolerate the loss of a single physical server.

          Scott.
          VCP2 / VCP3 / VCP4 / VCP 5 / VCAP-DCA4 / VCI / vExpert 2010-2012

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: VMware storage question....

            That's true Scott, however local storage might affect the performance from the VM's.
            I think the OP needs to reply what he needs to help him further.
            Marcel
            Technical Consultant
            Netherlands
            http://www.phetios.com
            http://blog.nessus.nl

            MCITP(EA, SA), MCSA/E 2003:Security, CCNA, SNAF, DCUCI, CCSA/E/E+ (R60), VCP4/5, NCDA, NCIE - SAN, NCIE - BR, EMCPE
            "No matter how secure, there is always the human factor."

            "Enjoy life today, tomorrow may never come."
            "If you're going through hell, keep going. ~Winston Churchill"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: VMware storage question....

              Ok, a lot to take in here.... my own fault I did ask!! I will attempt to insert some details.....

              "Why virtualize?"
              I have deployed VMware boxes already with justification of space. We are in a hosted DC and pay per rack per annum. The power consumption/hardware warranty of the current old blades coupled with the rack cost VS new smaller greener servers with a 3 yrs warranty has already made my case for this upgrade.

              I currently run hypervisors hosting XP/Win7 boxes with users remoting in all on single old blades with no huge issues (they are not heavily used). So now Iím looking at moving some SQL/SharePoint/app server/management servers into the virtual environment, this is where the performance will come into it (again anything will be better than what we currently have in terms of resources) I also have the option not to virtualise the SQL boxes and have them on their own tin, accessing local or SAN/NAS storage depending how much money I get to spend!

              So my option number one was me trying to figure out, will I get away with this in theory, or do I forget the local HD's and look at external storage as the only proper way to do this moving forward and if the baseline cost of the storage is too much then the decision is for the business not for me.

              This is why I was looking for an entry level cost for the storage to see if it was a non starter.

              Thanks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: VMware storage question....

                For option 1, you cannot do vMotion and you don't have HA.

                For option 2, the cost is an issue. Any cheap NAS will work (via NFS). However, if your usage is mission critical we suggest you use an enterprise SAN such as Dell Equalogic or NetApp SAN.
                Such SAN will cost somewhere from $15,000 to $60,000 depending on if you use SATA or SAS drives, if you need single controller or dual controllers, and how much disks do you need.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: VMware storage question....

                  Have made my mind up, option two is the only way forward for a number of reasons. Plus this project is replacing the current HP SAN so I donít want to go back the way.

                  The cost is not the biggest issue (anymore) as long as I can demonstrate the project is future proof which is exactly what I can do using external storage and point out we can then incrementally add the hypervisors as needed as long as we have the central point (good storage) in from the off....

                  Thanks for your help.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X