11th June 2010
Say for example you want to build a new Virtualization cluster. You've chosen the CPUs you want, and know you want 32 GB of fast shiny RAM.
The next thing to decide on is how the hell you're gonna store your VMDK (or otherwise) images, and then store the backups and snapshots too.
So. A typical VM Host server might be one of three choices.
For sake of argument, i'm using Dell as a vendor.
Dell R805, Dual AMD 2425HE, 6 cores per CPU, 2 CPUs.
32G of fast DDR2 ECC RAM.
Ah. Hard disks. Bugger.
You can have only 2 disks, in the R805 chassis. Bugger.
I'll have 2 fast SAS 300GB 6Gbit 15K 2.5" drives, in RAID 1.
Bugger. Only 300GB of storage. That's about enough for 3 small servers, or one big one.
Approx Cost: £3100
So, If i want to use the R805, i'm gonna need some kind of backend storage, be it NAS, or SAN, or an Unified Storage Device, providing NFS and iSCSI.
Dual or Quad CPU, also AMD, 8 or 12 cores per CPU.
32 G of RAM, again
Split volumes, R1 / R5 (shame it's not R6, but there we go.)
2x300GB SAS + 4 x 500GB SATA
Giving 300GB + 1.3TB
A bit better, but prohibitively expensive.
Dual 8 Core CPU = £6208
Quad 8 core CPU = £6698
Dual 12 Core = £7408
Quad 12 Core = £8608
Dual 2425HE, again
32 GB RAM
Option A (8x2.5" disks)
2 x 300GB SAS + 6x500GB SATA
= 300GB + 2.3TB
Total Cost : £ 5125
Option B (6x3.5" disks)
2 x 300GB SAS + 4 x 2TB SATA
= 300GB + 5.7TB
Total Cost : £4705
2 x 300GB SAS + 4 x 1TB SATA
= 300GB + 2.8TB
Total Cost : £4145
Right. Now. The interesting part is that this last server, the cost of storage alone, is only £191/TB.
One of the biggest problems associated with having large disk storage on the actual VM host itself, is the problem of not being particularly able to free up pockets of unused disk space.
Alternatively, a separate storage node would effectively allow better distribution of the storage, and exporting disks across the network.
So let's price that up.
(Because I like their up-front pricing, and shiny configurator)
Supermicro chassis, Intel server mobo, Intel Xeon E5504, dual CPU, 24GB RAM
6x300GB 15K SAS = 1.3TB
6x 2TB SATA = 9.5TB
Total Storage: 10.8TB
Total Cost: £6528
That's about £605 per TB. Not ideal.
But there's no real doubt that using iSCSI (or NFS) would provide masses more flexibility for the provisioning of storage for this project. Because the initial plan involved high-availability, using IP-based network storage protocols would also allow the disk-traffic to be routed across the public internet, using some kind of VPN technology.
My gut feeling is that the best solution is a cheap(-er) server, backed onto a more expensive disk storage unit.
I did consider pricing up a DAS array, and connecting it to one or other of the VM Hosts directly, either by FC or SAS, but then in the remote case of the failure, the disks aren't easily exportable to another server. Especially as SAS traffic can't be directly routed over the network.
Tom was once mistaken for the director general of Black Mesa.