Another new server question
-
@siringo
Not necessarily a bad way to go, but the best way is going to depend on the sort of workloads these VMs are going to be running.Someone is no doubt going to chime in to say that Hyper V is basically a dead product at this point and suggest KVM, possibly xcp-ng or proxmox.
If you can configure ALL SSDs that would be ideal, but I'd try to keep the hypervisor on a separate RAID set from the VMs. Ideally you'd have the VMs' OS disks isolated from their working data as well.
Hope this helps
-
@notverypunny hit the nail on the head. If you're standing up a new VM host - why go with something that has already been retired.
That said - Someone spouted some crap at me the other day -
it's not dead, just the stand alone product is dead - why do I say that? Because it's still in the Windows Server 2022 server itself. Sure that means you have to burn a license for the host, but meh, that's the cost of doing business
I suppose there could be some argument to be had there... But @scottalanmiller is much better at these explanations than I.
-
@Dashrender said in Another new server question:
@notverypunny hit the nail on the head. If you're standing up a new VM host - why go with something that has already been retired.
That said - Someone spouted some crap at me the other day -
it's not dead, just the stand alone product is dead - why do I say that? Because it's still in the Windows Server 2022 server itself. Sure that means you have to burn a license for the host, but meh, that's the cost of doing business
I suppose there could be some argument to be had there... But @scottalanmiller is much better at these explanations than I.
As the saying goes, "Price is what you pay, value is what you get!" If the business perceives Windows 2022 with Hyper-V Role to be worth the value it provides then it is the lowest cost option.
-
@Dashrender @notverypunny we have already had this discussion. Do you all have no memory?
The OS is not open for discussion.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the help with my previous server questions.
I have another. It has been quite a while since I had to spec up a new server, I usually just work with what I'm given.
From what I've seen it looks like vendors are now supplying servers out of the box with 2 x SSD drives. I've seen Lenovo come with 240GB and Dell with 480GB and you have to ask to not have them, you can't untick them from the configurator.
I'd config these as a RAID 1 pair, virtual disk 1 (VD1).
This new server will be a Windows server housing Hyper-V VMs.
So my question is, would you run the host OS instance and the VM OS instances on the SSDs (or VD1) and the storage for the VMs on spinning media?
Is that the best way to set this up???
Thanks once more.
I second @notverypunny with separating the Hypervisor on its own RAID 1.
If using Dell servers, BOSS card is one possible option. -
@siringo said in Another new server question:
So my question is, would you run the host OS instance and the VM OS instances on the SSDs (or VD1) and the storage for the VMs on spinning media?
This pair of SSD/NVMe is on a daughter card and not part of the main raid controller. The entire point of this is to be the location of the hypervisor OS. In your case Windows Server with the Hyper-V role. If it is not a separate card then don’t buy that server.
As for the main array of disks, why spinning disks? What is your total space needs? You can easily get pure SSD/NVMe for this into the terabyte range without excessive cost.
-
@JaredBusch said in Another new server question:
@Dashrender @notverypunny we have already had this discussion. Do you all have no memory?
The OS is not open for discussion.
nope
-
@JaredBusch said in Another new server question:
@Dashrender @notverypunny we have already had this discussion. Do you all have no memory?
The OS is not open for discussion.
Memory? Me? Not lately.... My brain seems to be turning into an etch-a-sketch.
But now that it's been prodded in the right direction I recall seeing the hyper-v discussion a while back.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
So my question is, would you run the host OS instance and the VM OS instances on the SSDs (or VD1) and the storage for the VMs on spinning media?
There are VERY VERY VERY few cases where you'd use spinning media, ever. Consider that spinning disks are easily 1% OR LESS than the speed of a cheap laptop hard drive. So when would you want your expensive server to be an itty, bitty fraction the speed of a cheap laptop? Never, basically.
Spinning drives are ONLY for super low performance, archival storage and special cases like that. Backups, perhaps. But even then, super rarely.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
From what I've seen it looks like vendors are now supplying servers out of the box with 2 x SSD drives. I've seen Lenovo come with 240GB and Dell with 480GB and you have to ask to not have them, you can't untick them from the configurator.
Good reason to choose a different vendor. If this one doesn't meet your needs.
-
@notverypunny said in Another new server question:
Someone is no doubt going to chime in to say that Hyper V is basically a dead product at this point and suggest KVM, possibly xcp-ng or proxmox.
We covered that thoroughly in his first post on the subject. He's aware. There's no business or technical decision here, it's purely politics.
-
@notverypunny said in Another new server question:
If you can configure ALL SSDs that would be ideal, but I'd try to keep the hypervisor on a separate RAID set from the VMs. Ideally you'd have the VMs' OS disks isolated from their working data as well.
Only in extreme cases would I bother to separate them. There's just no need for that anymore (since SSDs, really.)
-
@Dashrender said in Another new server question:
it's not dead, just the stand alone product is dead - why do I say that? Because it's still in the Windows Server 2022 server itself. Sure that means you have to burn a license for the host, but meh, that's the cost of doing business
"Just a cost of not doing business well." It's not a good product (relative to what is on the market for free), nor does it have a proper install method (that doesn't require license management - that alone should send it to the rubbish heap.) If someone was "doing business", Hyper-V could never make the list of considerations anymore. So anyone claiming this is a cost of business is completely misunderstanding business and IT at a deeper level.
-
@pmoncho said in Another new server question:
As the saying goes, "Price is what you pay, value is what you get!" If the business perceives Windows 2022 with Hyper-V Role to be worth the value it provides then it is the lowest cost option.
Hyper-V has only negative value. So they'd have to PAY you to use it, to make it "cost less" than the alternatives. That's the issue.
-
@pmoncho said in Another new server question:
I second @notverypunny with separating the Hypervisor on its own RAID 1.
If using Dell servers, BOSS card is one possible option.If that was free and didn't lose us storage, I'd agree. But it costs money and lowers usable storage. Except in extremely special cases where performance or reliability have to be absolutely maximized (and NO situation like that would ever, ever, ever consider Hyper-V, Windows, or making decisions based on politics over business value - so it cannot in any way apply here) I would not do that, even with spinning disks. That's why "OBR10" was something we talked about so much a decade ago. The need to split file systems just isn't a thing today.
https://smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one-big-raid-10-a-new-standard-in-server-storage/
That was a full decade ago.
-
So my thought it....
Do you HAVE to get Lenovo because of the same politics making you get Hyper-V? Then get it, waste the money, and buy more SSDs for the VMs. Good value doesn't matter, at all. It is what it is, don't put yourself at risk to save money of people who might resent you for it.
If you have no real reason to choose Lenovo, skip these unnecessarily complex and inappropriately designed devices. Get something that fits your needs properly and do a single appropriately sized SSD array.
-
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
I wouldn't say it is overspecc'd, but impropoerly specc'd. Not quite the same thing.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.That all makes sense. With good SSDs, RAID 5 works fine.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
