Xenserver and Storage
-
@jrc So HA lizard could do the trick in your case (or you can set ip up manually, basically DRBD between 2 hosts)
-
@danp I don't think it could do more than that because that's block replication without a cluster FS.
-
@olivier From their FAQ --
Is HA-Lizard only for 2-node pools?
No. HA-Lizard works with any number of hosts within a pool and provides reliable high availability in a 2-node pool.
-
It very likely means: replicate blocks are made on 2 nodes, and then other pool members are connected to this setup. It doesn't mean storage is scaled on all local SR within all hosts.
That's also something you could do on XOSAN: use a limited number of hosts to store data (from 2 to n). But you could also use all of them.
So in HA Lizard case, it means if you lose 2 hosts on a 16 pool for example, your data is gone.
Hope it's more clear this way
-
Halizard can work, but I'd highly recommend paying for support. I had issues with it, and while support was awesome, it's not something worth deploying yourself.
-
You could also look at starwinds vsan and use either a windows controller on each server, or go with the linux controllers that they recently released.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Xenserver and Storage:
You could also look at state d's vsan and use either a windows controller on each server, or go with the linux controllers that they recently released.
State D?
-
@reid-cooper spellcheck on mobile, I corrected it. Starwinds.
-
That makes a bit more sense.
-
@olivier I would not do HA Lizard, it is problematic with XenServer. You can ask @StorageNinja . I have gone through many SW posts having issues with this. I did recommend it once but it was not worth it. XOSAN will be much better
https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xenserver-hyperconverged-with-xosan/
or if you can afford two more host with WIndows Server and StarWind VSAN then it would be good too. -
@dbeato You can completely skip Windows and use the Linux VSAN controllers.
https://www.starwindsoftware.com/announcing-new-linux-based-starwind-virtual-storage-appliance-video
-
@dustinb3403 Even more amazing!! Thanks for the share. I didn't know.
-
@dbeato said in Xenserver and Storage:
@dustinb3403 Even more amazing!! Thanks for the share. I didn't know.
Yup, pretty much makes the setup impossible to beat, as you don't ever need to introduce Microsoft into the environment.
-
Can someone give me an overview what a VSAN setup would physically and software wise look like. Sounds like there is a controller involved, would this run on the host? Both hosts? Stand alone hardware?
What is the general cost for Starwind's VSAN stuff? Is it a perpetual licence or a per year thing?
-
@jrc said in Xenserver and Storage:
What is the general cost for Starwind's VSAN stuff? Is it a perpetual licence or a per year thing?
They have totally free versions.
-
@jrc said in Xenserver and Storage:
Can someone give me an overview what a VSAN setup would physically and software wise look like. Sounds like there is a controller involved, would this run on the host? Both hosts? Stand alone hardware?
What is the general cost for Starwind's VSAN stuff? Is it a perpetual licence or a per year thing?
Paging @KOOLER
-
@jrc said in Xenserver and Storage:
Can someone give me an overview what a VSAN setup would physically and software wise look like. Sounds like there is a controller involved, would this run on the host? Both hosts? Stand alone hardware?
It's SAN run on the hosts. VSAN just standard for Virtual SAN. It's really SAN, but it doesn't have any appliance associated with it, so you don't take on all of the risks of external storage, because it is stored on the hypervisor.
-
@jrc you'd have a VM on each host, running the VSAN software. They'd pool the resources from all of your servers.
Only your hypervisors would be the things needed. No dedicated cabling between the systems, no custom switches, no external storage.
Everything is hyperconverged between your available servers.
-
If you put VSAN on stand alone hardware, it turns back into normal SAN.
-
So you have a VM on each host, and you give it all the local storage. It then allows you to connect the host to it via some protocol (iSCSI, NAS etc)? Or does the VM has some sort of extra hook into the OS to manage and share the storage?
Does it basically just keep the storage volumes on each host synced and identical?
What kind of overhead does this create (ie if I have 6Tb in each server, does that mean I actually only have 3Tb of usable space since I need 2 copies of everything, 1 for each server)?
Is there a need for a dedicated link between hosts for sync traffic?
Starwind's stuff is free, which is cool. Is the paid version particularly expensive? I am thinking support would be a good idea, if only for a year.
This just sounds too easy and/or good to be true. As it sounds like I just need to add drives to my 2 hosts and setup some free software and I'd be set. So I am just making sure I know about as many of the considerations as possible before I run this up the flag pole for a budget.
