This is DeepStorageNet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following DeepStorageNet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Chad, I've been thinking a lot about this build vs buy evolution we're in the middle of and my own conversion from a strict builder to a more mature buyer. I'd love to chat (we only really get to chat on podcasts and at craps tables) about the details but I do want to question ReadyNodes as really build. I would class them closer to buy. A ReadyNode customer who loves iLO or UCS Manager has a small number of configs to choose from and is still exporting the expertise of picking SSDs, setting the performance to capacity, RAM to core, core to storage and other ratios a full roll-your-own VSAN setup would take. Sure ReadyNodes are more flexible than EVO:RAIL was but it seems to me more about letting the customer choose the intangibles of the vendor relationship than building.
As one of those speculating that it was an architectural problem I stand corrected. I just wish I had been corrected before I got on the stage at VMworld. Oh well, my deck is fixed now. - Howard
Chuck, I think we're in agreement, and for applications where a 1-2% chance of data loss is OK and there are many, 2 copies, and the current VMware admin processes, would be fine. Therefore I appreciate the choice. For most of my apps I'd say 3 copies, for some 2 copies and modified process to migrate data off before power down. As a Steely-eyed Storage Guy paranoia is my job.
Chuck, While I wouldn't say that VSAN REQUIRES 3 copies of data I would say that in a distributed mirror architecture using standard servers like VSAN, or most object stores for that matter, that I wouldn't sleep well at night with less than 3 copies. When that VMware admin takes a node offline to add capacity, as you suggest they can, if they took the defaults there would be just 1 copy of each VM on 1 disk drive. Should that drive fail at the wrong moment the poor admin would be faced with data loss. To get resiliency comparable to a dual controller array with RAID 3 total copies would be required. I would also note that per-VM data services are not unique to VSAN or even ServerSANs. Tintri for one has per-VM data services at lower cost in performance or capacity than VSAN. I hear some others do as well including Isilon. I, as you well know, also work for storage vendors as an analyst. Tintri has loaned me a storage system but has not, yet hopefully, engaged my services. - Howard
Thanks for the link Chuck. As a New Yorker also dealing with the lovely winter I agree the tweets from the VI get under my skin. I'll be posting my thoughts on the backup post next week. Too good for a mere comment.
Toggle Commented Feb 5, 2011 on More Friday Ranting at Chuck's Blog
DeepStorageNet is now following The Typepad Team
Feb 4, 2011