Posts made by Jimmy9008

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.

I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.

I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.

Thats why I am specifically not doing this type of thing. As said, it may not be the top tier all bells and whistled HCI, but three nodes or more, with starwind vsan, running a windows failover cluster is 1) still HCI, and 2) better than doing an ipod.

Yup. As long as it's Starwind vSAN and not any Windows storage, it's actually really good. WIndows, Hyper-V, Starwind... all good components. It's really ReFS and SS that are scary and to be avoided. This isn't bad at all, actually.

Well, the CSV cluster storage is provided by Starwind on the same hosts to all hosts. They actually have these starwind image files on each of the nodes, where starwind runs, which contain the LUN/CSV/vSAN data... So the starwind files sit on windows, but are provided over iSCSI by starwind to the cluster... if that makes sense. I assume that is standard for how the vsan works.

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.

I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.

I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.

Thats why I am specifically not doing this type of thing. As said, it may not be the top tier all bells and whistled HCI, but three nodes or more, with starwind vsan, running a windows failover cluster is 1) still HCI, and 2) better than doing an ipod.

Yup. As long as it's Starwind vSAN and not any Windows storage, it's actually really good. WIndows, Hyper-V, Starwind... all good components. It's really ReFS and SS that are scary and to be avoided. This isn't bad at all, actually.

Which starts to get back to where my initial issue started. Many on the team say that is not HCI due to having more than one NIC. And I sit there thinking WTF! That's why I am going down this rabbit hole trying to understand in some level of detail what HCI is...

For example, we have 2 x quad port 10 GB NIC and 1 x 100 Gb Mellanox in each of the three nodes. The mellanox is for a dedicated backend starwind sync between the three nodes (best practice from what starwind said). The two quad cards are for redundant iSCSI links, redundant links for VM networks to core, and redundant links for hosts/cluster com. Yet, I get folks in my team say... woah... 3 NICs! Thats not HCI. VXRail do it all with 1 x NIC in each box. Must be a shit solution if VXrail only need 1 and starwind want 3! Blows my mind.

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.

I don't think anyone wants this, they are simply having the wool pulled over their eyes as someone steals their money.

I see it a lot, and it's always someone getting a little something from their buddy at the dealer.

Thats why I am specifically not doing this type of thing. As said, it may not be the top tier all bells and whistled HCI, but three nodes or more, with starwind vsan, running a windows failover cluster is 1) still HCI, and 2) better than doing an ipod.

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?

You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.

Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?

Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."

How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualization

Because no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.

So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?

Correct, it's HCI. Just crappy or possibly useless HCI

Maybe crappy HCI, but far better than three servers, connected to two switches, to one physical SAN which is what many here want.

I was trying to understand why my team think multiple NIC means a solution is not HCI. I could not understand why they think that. Following this thread, I now know they are wrong. Plus multiple solutions have multiple NICs. Its just retarded to think that. You have also helped understand HCI, somewhat. The three/many nodes running vsan/failover cluster is HCI, but its not as nice as other HCI. Thats what I will take from this. Cheers folks

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?

You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.

Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?

Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."

How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualization

Because no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.

So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?

Yes, it's poormans HCI, because it lacks of lot of the tooling you (generally) would find great value in.

Cheers guys, I think you have covered my question.

@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

So HCI can only be obtained by purchasing a solution from vendors like Dell, Scale, Nutanix, VMWare?
Simply then, if the solution is not some proprietary tech from a company like that it will never be HCI, as it does not have the tooling?

What? No.

Of course not, the linux community could (and likely are working on) an HCI solution right now. HCI != Proprietary

Its about having the tooling, not the provider of the tooling.

Ok, I can take that on board. So... let me rephrase with that in mind...

Is this correct to say then: If the system does not have the tooling on top of the hardware it cannot be HCI.

Correct?

By "on board" did you mean - that you could accept that definition personally? or did you mean you would take to the Board of Directors at your company?

The first one. Sorry for any confusion.

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

I get that a vendor has some cool tech they stick on top of their HCI hardware to sell me a HCA, but you can still have HCI without that super cool layer on top that they have, right? Or are we saying HCI can only ever be HCI if it has all the bells on top that vendors sell through their proprietary software/stack?

You could do HCI yourself, sure but building the tools to get it aren't something any individual would reasonably do.

Would users of Starwind vSAN, running a three node setup using their vSAN with WFC on top be HCI? Three nodes, all shared storage, to a Windows Failover Cluster running over all three nodes... sure, its not as polished as the scale solutions (never said it is).... but does that mean it is not HCI?

Starwind is the leader in high performance HCI. Starwind leads performance and scaling. Scale leads ease of use and automation. The two together effectively define HCI capabilities on the market. Everyone else is an "also mentioned."

How can this be when right at the start somebody said HCI is:
Compute virtualization
Networking virtualization
Storage virtualization

Because no aspect of that statement is true. Storage virtualization means nothing. NEtworking virtualization is very rare even in HCI. Compute virtualization is ubiquitous and you can't even call something production without it. None are a factor in defining HCI.

So with this in mind, that architecture I wrote out above which is quoted is in fact HCI then? It may not have the bells that Scale has, but it is still HCI, right?

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@scottalanmiller said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Ok, I can take that on board.

In what insane universe does a board...

1. Talk about IT
2. Know what HCI is.
3. Have any ability to discuss this.
4. Get into the weeds of understanding really, really technical IT underpinnings that no normal IT department knows?

I didn't notice this or maybe I just read past it. But @Jimmy9008 are you being asked to present to a "board" what HCI is?

Nonono, not at all. I mean this in the sense of I can take the idea on board/understand what was said/incorporate it in to what I think... nothing to do with boards.

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

HyperConvered Infrastructure

It does,

But again Hyperconverged != HCI (as in the car is Hyperconverged but is not HCI).

Bah! I don't get it. Sorry guys, not trying to be dumb. I just cant get over the logic.

If HCI == HyperConverged Infrastructure, then how can a Hyperconverged car != HCI. When we already said HCI = HyperConverged Infrastructure.

Cheers for trying guys, I just don't think I am getting it.

Car = 1
Car = Hyperconverged
Therefore, Hyperconverged = 1
HCI = HyperConverged Infrastructure....
Car, Hyperconverged, HCI = all 1... they are all the same...
So, why is car not HCI!

I think its best if I go focus on something else for a bit and rethink tomorrow.
Cheers for the help guys. I am sure ill get it eventually.

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

HCI means to ensure that whatever services you are hosting, 1 have the tooling to manage everything cohesively and 2 to be redundant to failure of any individual component.

A car is hyperconverged, but is not HCI. If the AC in the car stops working, it's still a complete car.

But it can't be HCI because there is no way to get the AC to work from some other car for the car you're in.

Make sense?

I think so. So, hyperconverged does not have to be HCI? As in, the car can be hyperconverged, but not HCI.

I literally thought the HCI acronym came from the HyperConvered Infrastructure. Meaning, I thought HCI/Hyperconverged Infrastructure are 100% the same thing. Interchangeable. So saying hyperconvergence != HCI is maybe what I am missing?

@Dashrender said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:

But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.

But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.

A single server is hyperconverged.

An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.

Yes, I agree. *If it has the cohesive tooling required to manage it. I think the thing confiusing me is when people say "A single server is hyperconverged." when actually, going by what I have ready today... they should actually say "A single server with HCI tooling is hyperconverged." - or something to that nature. I'm currently along the mindset that "A single server is hyperconverged." is incorrect. It lacks important information.

Why does hyperconverged have to mean HCI?

Hyperconverged Infrastructure is why HCI stands for, no? Maybe thats the thing I have been misunderstanding...

Does HCI not mean 'Hyperconverged Infrastructure'... Like LAN means Local Area Network...

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Think of a windows server.

Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches.

Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason.

You need to have a way to move the services any server might host to a different server in these events. You may need to have SQL change where its looking or to have a file share always available etc.

It's more than just the car motor dying. If the AC in the car dies, this could be considered downtime, even if the car still drives.

Right at the start you literally said "every server that has compute and storage in the box is hyperconverged."
The server you just wrote about, that server... it has compute and storage in the box. So, by your first statement it is hyperconverged. Now 100 posts in you say "Think of a windows server. Windows servers often need to restart to apply patches. Windows cannot be HCI standalone (by itself). Due to this reason."

In my mind these conflict and both cannot be true. You say every computer with local compute and storage is hyperconverged. Yes, now you say that windows server, which has local storage and compute, is not hyperconverged....

Im probably just missing something silly. But its these types of directly conflicting things that throw me off.

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).

^ Why not then just say its not at all HCI? Why add any caveat. If more than 0 affect, then not HCI... no?

No, because it could be automatically started up on the other hosts in the environment. Tooling could be there. The trouble comes in when you have to consider the client needs.

If a client can't have a workload go down at all during business hours, the example above doesn't achieve this. Because the workload needs to start up on separate hardware.

But if the client can deal with "less uptime" it may be sufficient and save the client money to use poor mans HCI tooling.

So... it is HCI, or as you say "poor mans HCI", because it has tooling, just that tooling is not as advanced as other tooling. Right?

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

If there is any "start up here in event X conditions" its going to be poor mans HCI. Solutions like Scale have 0 downtime (if a car motor dies you wouldn't notice as the trip still goes on).

^ Why not then just say its not at all HCI? Why add any caveat. If more than 0 affect, then not HCI... no?

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 This is poor mans HCI, because the services have to be brought online on the other servers.

This only just qualifies.

It would be like if you had several cars, if you're driving one and the engine dies, you can get to your destination still but you need to move into another car to finish the trip. (there would be noticeable delays).

I think going by what I have read today I would rather say its not HCI at all. At the start I would have said it is HCI. But now, I would say its 'HCI like, but without the advanced tooling'.

Not bad, but able to meet the business needs.

I just get confused where under one side, HCI is able to lose a car and keep driving without any delay... yet, poor mans HCI is still only just HCI. I'd rather say if the system cannot survive a failed car with 0 delay... then its not HCI. Makes things simple for me.

Unless HCI and what qualifies as HCI is simply going to be different every time depending on who you ask? It has no universal standard definition...

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 see the difference in the statement there?

A single server COULD be HCI if you have the tooling to manage all the things that are it, but stand-alone working servers are hyper-converged as they contain everything to function on their own.

@DustinB3403

So.... is this HCI or not?

Three servers setup together as a windows failover cluster, using local storage, provided to the three node cluster via a vSAN. Everything I need is contained within the cluster. I can manage the entire cluster from windows failover cluster services. Just like the other solutions, I can lose a node and the cluster will bring up VMs on the other nodes. I can add/edit/modify vSAN/CSVs via Starwind console/powershell from within the same three nodes... It doesnt have the advanced tooling though that Scale, Nutanix, VXRail all give though...

So, its not actually HCI, right?

@DustinB3403 said in What makes a system HCI?:

@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:

But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred, hyperconverged with out the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.

But no one can seriously consider anything, single box or a hundred HCI without the tooling that manages it all as a cohesive thing.

A single server is hyperconverged.

An HCI environment, can contain a single server (or more) but has the cohesive tooling required to manage it.

Yes, I agree. *If it has the cohesive tooling required to manage it. I think the thing confiusing me is when people say "A single server is hyperconverged." when actually, going by what I have ready today... they should actually say "A single server with HCI tooling is hyperconverged." - or something to that nature. I'm currently along the mindset that "A single server is hyperconverged." is incorrect. It lacks important information.

@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

So I guess my next leap from this then is what is inherently wrong with 'HCI like' setups? I can take on board that its not HCI, thats fine.

Nothing whatsoever. If they meet the needs of the business.

Thanks, this helps

@JaredBusch said in What makes a system HCI?:

@Jimmy9008 said in What makes a system HCI?:

Its rediculous we keep saying it if it is just not true, as it can never be serious.

You are not going to catch me arguing with you on this statement.

Ok, I get that. I'm not trying to argue, just to understand

So I guess my next leap from this then is what is inherently wrong with 'HCI like' setups? I can take on board that its not HCI, thats fine. But, does it make the solution bad.

Like I posted earlier, if I have a 3 node system running a windows failover cluster and a starwind vSAN... as long as it meets my uptime needs, is it still bad because its not, true HCI? If we take HCI as having to have tooling...