[AusNOG] Back of envelope II

Fri Mar 6 21:13:08 EST 2009

Yes, I agree.  If your production load needs all the resources then virtualisation is likely just to make things more complicated,  However we use virtualisation a lot to either accommodate servers that simply don't need all the resources in a single machine, to provide some stand-by capacity to help cover failures that aren't that critical but would otherwise be a pain, and to keep customers apart from each other without dedicating hardware to the task.  In particular, in order to comply with PCI-DSS, we have a lot of management infrastructure in the data centre and these hardly do any real work.  In contrast our database servers are not virtualised as they run at 40% capacity now and we scale up automatically when we reach 75%.

In our situation, it's about 50/50 and we expect some existing VMs to outgrow their environment and either be virtualised on beefier hardware or moved back onto a native O/S.

We've played with Hyper-V and XEN-Server but we keep coming back to VMWare.

Regards,
Rick

________________________________________
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Shane Short [shane at short.id.au]
Sent: Friday, 6 March 2009 9:05 PM
To: Skeeve Stevens
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Back of envelope II

Ouch is right. :)

I'm one of those not-so-big fans of Virtualisation, but mostly because
most
of the workloads I'm used to dealing with consume an entire host full of
resources (mail/web clusters), however if it's one of those low usage
scenarios, then sure, throw it in a VM.

A previous employer of mine recently moved their entire mail/web
clustering
(Previously running on Poweredge 1855 blades) into VMware (which were
running pretty hot at the best of times) and
I suddenly start hearing about customers having long mail delays..

I guess it's my ISP background which makes me a bit iffy on the whole
thing, if not done properly it gets expensive and introduces single
points
of failure.

If someone other than corp. IT people can convince me its the way to
go, I'll listen. :)

-Shane

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:36:30 +1100, Skeeve Stevens
<skeeve at eintellego.net>
wrote:
> Ouch
>
> --
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> --
> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>
> Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for
> the
> named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private
> proprietary
> or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or
> indirectly,
> use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message
> if you
> are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal
> entity
in
> the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor
> all
> e-mail communications through its networks.  Any views expressed in
> this
> message are those of the individual sender, except where the message
states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views
> of
any
> such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual
> transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate
> confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of
> eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and
> outbound
> e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or
compatible
> with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of
> viruses
or
> computer problems experienced.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Campbell, Alex [mailto:Alex.Campbell at ogilvy.com.au]
>> Sent: Friday, 6 March 2009 2:32 PM
>> To: Skeeve Stevens; Nathan Gardiner
>> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
>> Subject: RE: [AusNOG] Back of envelope II
>>
>> VI Foundation (the $6k package below) doesn't achieve server
>> redundancy,
>> as it doesn't include VMotion, HA etc.
>>
>> To get VMotion you need VI Enterprise which is $19,595 USD for a 6
>> CPU
>> Acceleration Kit.  I don't think that price includes
>> support/maintenance
>> which is mandatory.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
>> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
>> Sent: Friday, 6 March 2009 2:21 PM
>> To: Nathan Gardiner
>> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Back of envelope II
>>
>> I disagree.  There are some services/applications that lend
>> themselves
>> to clustering and many which do not unless a lot of expensive is
>> involved.  Windows Servers, Citrix, Oracle and other DB servers,
>> Exchange and so on are not easy to provide hardware redundancy
>> without
>> significant cost.
>>
>> I don't think the costs of VMware are that excessive.
>>
>> http://store.vmware.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayPr
>> o
>> ductDetailsPage
>> &SiteID=vmware&Locale=en_US&Env=BASE&productID=83617500
>>
>> VMware Infrastructure Foundation Acceleration Kit for 6 Processors
>> (VI
>> Foundation, vCenter Server Foundation) + Gold (12x5) 1 Year Support
>> US$3624 / AU$6194
>>
>> Gives you everything you want.  Not free no, but very reasonably
>> priced
>> for what you get.
>>
>> I so agree however, if the application is simple and can be dealt
>> with
>> by load balancer or reverse proxy, such as web hosting, smtp or other
>> simple solutions, then that is the way to go.
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nathan Gardiner [mailto:ngardiner at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, 6 March 2009 1:56 PM
>>> To: Skeeve Stevens
>>> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
>>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Back of envelope II
>>>
>>> VMWare ESX is an expensive way to achieve server redundancy, if
>> that's
>>> your only goal. SAN redundancy can be achieved through multipath on
>>> linux with equivalent solutions on Windows. Network redundancy can
>>> be
>>> achieved through bonding or teaming of NIC adaptors.
>>>
>>> The equivalent of what you are achieving through virtualisation is
>>> possible by deploying several hosts with the same function and using
>>> content switches, or even OSPF/anycast, to allow a single node to be
>>> taken down without (any/much) operational impact. Shared SAN storage
>>> and clustered filesystems can allow several nodes (with the correct
>>> application intelligence) to access the same data volumes.
>>>
>>> Virtualisation works well and reduces cost, but is not without
>>> limitation. High network utilisation can saturate shared network
>>> connections, high CPU can cause latency across the host, high SAN
>>> utilisation can cause storage latency. High memory utilisation can
>>> cause swapping, which in turn causes significant latency. You can
>>> always scale VMWare hosts but there is a cost involved - the higher
>>> you scale to deal with infrequent utilisation, the less of an
>>> advantage you gain by virtualising (not to mention licensing costs
>>> on
>>> top).
>>>
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Skeeve Stevens
>> <skeeve at eintellego.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The ONLY solid way that I know to do good server redundancy is with
>>> Virtual Platforms that support SAN, Fibre Channel/iSCSI with diverse
>>> heads.
>>>>
>>>> We manage multiple instances of VMware ESX/ESXi that have 2+ heads
>>> backed into SAN's with both heads fed into Cisco switches - nearly
>>> always 3560G/3750G-stacked configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Those have never gone down, even when upgrading the physical
>> hardware
>>> - VM's just migrate between heads.
>>>>
>>>> Some say VM's aren't appropriate for some applications... I would
>>> debate that as even in a dedicated VM solution there is not many
>>> apps
>>> that wouldn't happily work with that given dedicated NIC, Storage,
>> CPU
>>> and RAM access.
>>>>
>>>> ...Skeeve
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
>>>> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
>>>> skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
>>>> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
>>>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
>>>> --
>>>> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for
>>> the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private
>>> proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not,
>>> directly
>>> or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of
>>> this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty
>> Ltd
>>> and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies
>> reserve
>>> the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.
>>> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
>> sender,
>>> except where the message states otherwise and the sender is
>> authorised
>>> to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to
>>> costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to
>>> contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed
>> by
>>> an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are
>> made
>>> to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that
>>> attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do
>>> not
>>> accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems
>>> experienced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-
>>>>> bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Michael Bethune
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 6 March 2009 12:14 PM
>>>>> To: ausnog at ausnog.net
>>>>> Subject: [AusNOG] Back of envelope II
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks folks for all the responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible to do auto fail over redundant switching and what
>> if
>>>>> anything
>>>>> in the Cisco range would do it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember using a dual cisco catalyst, but you ended up with a
>> pair
>>> of
>>>>> tails, 1 from each catalyst, with a heart beat connecting the two
>>>>> catalysts
>>>>> together. Has the state moved on to allow you to have transparent
>>> (to
>>>>> the
>>>>> connected hosts) redundant switching?
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog