Upgrading our primary storage server

[Mackintire]

With those numbers, you'd be fine with the 4 HDD + SSD ZIL/L2ARC (preferably mirrored). That said, I would much rather use two separate servers or run everything on the same OS rather than add overhead and complexity by running virtualzation on something that's most likely within a reasonable future never going to be used.

It would however be nice if you could get two servers for redundancy in case one dies.

//Danne

Why do you think we are endorsing virtualization?

Redundancy and ease of restore/portability, that's why.

Virtualization is as complex as you want it to be. Using Server 2012 R2 + Hyper-V 3.0 is cheap.

Cheaper still is using the Free Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V server edition and purchasing a license of http://www.5nine.com/5nine-manager-for-hyper-v-product.aspx $200.00 per host with no reoccuring fees.

Microsoft like to hide the link so:
The Free (no gui) Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 is here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn205299.aspx

 

[diizzy]

Please do tell how that would help with _ONE_ server except add overhead and unneeded complexity. Using two he could do a somewhat nice fall over but still, it would add overhead for no reason (just mirror it). If he needed a bunch of different services perhaps but this does not need visualization. If anything, ESXi would probably be a better choice.
//Danne

 

[Nate7311]

The virtualization endorsement was less about the initial problem and more about the environment in general. Until the OP either indulges us and gives us a better peak at the network as a whole, or tells us no, all of our ideas are hamstrung.

 

[Mackintire]

Physical server....dies.

Make new machine...install OS....install configure services...restore data....rebuild shares assuming you can export the registry. Verify services



Virtual machine dies...

Buy new machine...install host os, attach shared storage , Import VMDK or VHD, turn on VM, verify services.


Restoring a VM is cake compared to a physical box, as the OS doesn't have to see different hardware.


Upgrading a virtual host compared to upgrading a physical host.

Physical host.....same as building from scratch. AKA a long time.

VM host.....install host OS, import VM AKA a short time.


ESXi is really all there is anymore.... VMware started calling it ESX but the new ESX as of 18 months ago is ESXi. no service console.

 

[vr.]

Huh... I thought their marketing mongers call it "vSphere".

There is still Xen and others btw. Lets not pretend VMware is the only game in town or you'll be telling the masses "VMware invented virtualization" like their executive bimbo did at their VMworld 2013 keynote. Nice of her to piss off mainframe shops that have been doing virtualization for decades before VMware ever existed.

 

[diizzy]

@ Mackintire
Physical server dies, you move the HDDs in worst case and you have to change NIC config. At least if you run FreeBSD and most likely Linux too. So no, it's not any harder.

//Danne

 

[Mackintire]

@ Mackintire
Physical server dies, you move the HDDs in worst case and you have to change NIC config. At least if you run FreeBSD and most likely Linux too. So no, it's not any harder.

//Danne

95% of my stuff is windows... Which should explain my view a little.

I've had problems with new hardware in Linux as well. Eth0 verses Om0 totally screwed up one of our locked down system....especially since it was built to not allow root access unless you enable the console....which was disabled and only can be re-enabled via the port 80 admin interface.

We also use Xen and virtualbox.

 

[diizzy]

I see ;-)
//Danne