Information Systems:Server Virtualization Planning - Revision history

Norwinu: /* Phase 4 Planning */

2017-04-24T23:31:49Z

Phase 4 Planning

Norwinu: /* Phase 4 Planning */

2017-04-24T23:21:53Z

Phase 4 Planning

Norwinu: /* Phase 4 Planning */

2017-04-24T23:10:37Z

Phase 4 Planning

Norwinu: /* Phase 4 Planning */

2017-04-24T23:09:40Z

Phase 4 Planning

Norwinu at 23:07, 24 April 2017

2017-04-24T23:07:50Z

Norwinu: /* Phase 3 Planning */

2017-02-22T22:30:50Z

Phase 3 Planning

Norwinu: /* Phase 3 Planning */

2017-02-22T22:22:46Z

Phase 3 Planning

Norwinu at 22:21, 22 February 2017

2017-02-22T22:21:11Z

Norwinu: /* Phase 3 Planning */

2017-02-20T22:13:24Z

Phase 3 Planning

Norwinu at 21:34, 20 February 2017

2017-02-20T21:34:32Z

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 * (10) - Lenovo PM863a 960GB Enterprise Entry SSD
 :* All-flash storage
-:* 5-disk RAID 6 arrays per host
+:* (1) 5-disk RAID 6 array per host
 :* '''2-disk failure tolerance'''
 :* '''~2.5TB''' of storage per host.

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 ==Phase 4 Planning==
- Proposed hardware specs
+ Proposed purchase list
 * (2) - Lenovo X3650 M5 (MT 8871),
@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :* Controlled by included M5210 controller
 * (2) 1GB cache / RAID 6 feature upgrade for M5210

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 * (2) - Lenovo X3650 M5 (MT 8871),
 :* 16GB memory
-:* 1 x E5-2620 v4 10-core (10 PC / 20 LC), 2.4GHz
+:* 1 x E5-2620v4 '''10-core (10 physical / 20 logical)''', 2.4GHz per core
 * (12) - Lenovo 8GB DDR4 ECC
 :* 6 per host + include 16GB = '''64GB RAM per host'''
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 :* All-flash storage
 :* 5-disk RAID 6 arrays per host
-:* 2-disk failure
+:* '''2-disk failure tolerance'''
-:* ~2.5TB of storage per host.
+:* '''~2.5TB''' of storage per host.
 :* Controlled by included M5210 controller
 * (2) 1GB cache / RAID 6 feature upgrade for M5210

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 24 April 2017
Line 80:		Line 80:
	:* 2-disk failure		:* 2-disk failure
	:* ~2.5TB of storage per host.		:* ~2.5TB of storage per host.
		+	:* Controlled by included M5210 controller
		+	* (2) 1GB cache / RAID 6 feature upgrade for M5210

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 24 April 2017
Line 66:		Line 66:

	* Superserver virtualization somewhat complicates storage planning. At 3.5TB, it would not be feasible to have 2 arrays (one on each host) of this size. So either the Superserver VM and virtual disks be localized to one host (no redundancy), or Superserver is not virtualized until a SAN can be purchased. The latter option is not feasible. Superserver is not compute-redundant today, so it may be ok to localize it on a single VM host. The problem with this however is the storage requirements of Superserver would still require a large array.		* Superserver virtualization somewhat complicates storage planning. At 3.5TB, it would not be feasible to have 2 arrays (one on each host) of this size. So either the Superserver VM and virtual disks be localized to one host (no redundancy), or Superserver is not virtualized until a SAN can be purchased. The latter option is not feasible. Superserver is not compute-redundant today, so it may be ok to localize it on a single VM host. The problem with this however is the storage requirements of Superserver would still require a large array.
		+
		+	==Phase 4 Planning==
		+	Proposed hardware specs
		+
		+	* (2) - Lenovo X3650 M5 (MT 8871),
		+	:* 16GB memory
		+	:* 1 x E5-2620 v4 10-core (10 PC / 20 LC), 2.4GHz
		+	* (12) - Lenovo 8GB DDR4 ECC
		+	:* 6 per host + include 16GB = '''64GB RAM per host'''
		+	* (10) - Lenovo PM863a 960GB Enterprise Entry SSD
		+	:* All-flash storage
		+	:* 5-disk RAID 6 arrays per host
		+	:* 2-disk failure
		+	:* ~2.5TB of storage per host.
		+

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 * Another point of discussion is the Smithers server. It is a dual-CPU, 12-core, 24-thread (6c/12t each) system with 32GB of DDR4 RAM. It has more than enough power to be one of the hosts. Though, from a  business perspective, this machine has technically been approved and purchased for the uses that it currently serves today, it is still heavily under-utilized (CPU-wise). Seeing that the virtualization of our current physical servers will not be done all at once, there is potential value in using this machine as one of the hosts. Recall that the point of virtualization is to shift the emphasis/focus from the hardware specifications of the physical machine. Server hosts should just be considered compute nodes, and as such, Smithers appears quite capable, even if one or two CPU generations removed from what you'd be looking to buy today.
-:* A potential caveat to this endeavor is that the processor is or will be 2-3 generations older, which means little when considering computer capabilities, but vMotion requires compatible CPUs. There is vSphere feature to work around this (EVC clustering), but this should be kept in mind nonetheless.
+:* A potential caveat to this endeavor is that the processor is or will be 2-3 generations older, which means little when considering compute capabilities, but vMotion requires compatibility between CPUs. However, there is a vSphere feature to work around this (EVC clustering), but this should be kept in mind nonetheless.
-* At this point in time, storage IO should start being considered. Whether shared or local, storage will be redundant, and thus an array will be required. The first-level RAID arrays (1,5,6) will likely not satisfy the IO requirements when usage by multiple VMs is factored in, so we may have to consider nested RAID arrays. Nested RAID usually dictates more disks, and there will be trade-off between number of disks in a local array (which also has to be x2 for each host) vs. "just going with a SAN".
+* At this point in time, storage IO should start being considered. Whether shared or local, storage will be redundant, and thus an array will be required. The first-level RAID arrays (1,5,6) will likely not satisfy the IO requirements when usage by multiple VMs is factored in, so we may have to consider nested RAID arrays. Nested RAID usually dictates more disks, and there will be trade-off between number of disks in a local array (which also has to be x2 for each host) vs. "just going with a SAN". Even in the case of a SAN, there is the possibility of hard disks still being too slow. The incorporation of flash, whether as cache or as a datastore for operating system partitions, should be strongly considered.

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 * Most of the topics discussed in the previous sections/phases are still relevant.
-* Another point of discussion is the Smithers server. It is a dual-CPU, 12-core, 24-thread (6c/12t each) system with 32GB of DDR4 RAM. It has more than enough power to be one of the hosts. Though, from a  business perspective, this machine has technically been approved and purchased for the uses that it currently serves today, it is still heavily under-utilized (CPU-wise). Seeing that the virtualization of our current physical servers will not be done all at once, there is potential value in using this machine as one of the hosts. Recall that the point of virtualization is to shift the emphasis/focus from the specifications of the physical machine. Server hosts should just be considered compute nodes, and as such, Smithers appears quite capable.
+* Another point of discussion is the Smithers server. It is a dual-CPU, 12-core, 24-thread (6c/12t each) system with 32GB of DDR4 RAM. It has more than enough power to be one of the hosts. Though, from a  business perspective, this machine has technically been approved and purchased for the uses that it currently serves today, it is still heavily under-utilized (CPU-wise). Seeing that the virtualization of our current physical servers will not be done all at once, there is potential value in using this machine as one of the hosts. Recall that the point of virtualization is to shift the emphasis/focus from the hardware specifications of the physical machine. Server hosts should just be considered compute nodes, and as such, Smithers appears quite capable, even if one or two CPU generations removed from what you'd be looking to buy today.
 :* A potential caveat to this endeavor is that the processor is or will be 2-3 generations older, which means little when considering computer capabilities, but vMotion requires compatible CPUs. There is vSphere feature to work around this (EVC clustering), but this should be kept in mind nonetheless.

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ==Phase 3 Planning==
  Post-training discussion.
 [[Category: Virtualization]]