Small Branch Offices

[Paul_B1]

Here's the situation we're looking at. We have offices all over the world, a lot of them in small sales types offices. In the past, each site gets one server, a "Multi-Function" server as we call it. It hosts user/group files, Active Directory GC/DC, Virus & Altiris repositories etc. Obviously using VMware we could make each of these their own guests which would allow for MUCH better separation of duties.

My question is how do others deal with expanding disk needs? I know you can't just expand a RAID 5 and then expand the VMFS volume like you would an NTFS volume. As I understand it, you can expand the array and then create a NEW VMFS volume, or use extents. What are you doing? Do you use ESX starter in branch offices?

We use ESX extensively here at our Global Headquarters, and are deploying to some larger "hub sites", but they all have or will have SANS which makes life easier. I just want to get a feel for how others are doing it and see if it's worth looking at.

[acr]

My question is how do others deal with expanding disk

needs? I know you can't just expand a RAID 5 and

then expand the VMFS volume like you would an NTFS

volume. As I understand it, you can expand the array

and then create a NEW VMFS volume, or use extents.

What are you doing? Do you use ESX starter in

branch offices?

I Guess firstly your Servers will need the capacity to scale in terms of Storage.

Also for local Storage (assumming the remote sites will not have SANs, bear in mind iSCSI can be a very cost effective solution) there will have to be an outage to grow Storage..

So as your Storage requirement grows add the Storage and create multiple VMFS Partitions, try to keep away from Extents, they not really best practise..

As far as licensing, Starter or Standard would do..

[stvkpln]

I Guess firstly your Servers will need the capacity

to scale in terms of Storage.

That's definitely true. If you're using HP servers, the new generation of systems come with quite a large capacity of internal storage (a DL36x can come with up to 6 2.5" SAS drives -- 146GB x6 is quite a bit , or a DL38x/58x can come with up to 8), so the possibility for internal storage scalability is definitely there.

Also for local Storage (assumming the remote sites

will not have SANs, bear in mind iSCSI can be a very

cost effective solution) there will have to be an

outage to grow Storage..

So as your Storage requirement grows add the Storage

and create multiple VMFS Partitions, try to keep away

from Extents, they not really best practise..

As far as licensing, Starter or Standard would do..

Keep in mind that Starter will not allow the use of shared type of storage (i.e. iSCSI or FC, possibly not NAS? Not sure on that), so if you are going to head down the path, be careful of the licensing based on the architecture you want to pursue!

[ngrundy]

Well it depends on you're requirements.

We have created what we term a site-in-a-box.

The config consists of

\- Hitachi AMS 200 6x300GB FCAL

\- 2x Dell PE2950's (2x1.6ghz, 16GB, 2x73gb, 2xQLE2460, 1x Intel dual gig-e)

\- 1x Dell PE1950 (2x1.6ghz, 4gb)

\- 2x McData 4400's (8ports)

\- 1x Quantum Super Loader 3 (LTO3)

\- APC Netshelter

\- 2x APC Smart PDU

\- PowerWare 6kva UPS

\- Comvault Galaxy Comcell (5x Win IDA, 4x Linux IDA, Exchange IDA, AD IDA)

All told around $110k AUD but we are an educational institution

A smaller site we priced reacently at around 40k AUD with

\- 1x 2950 16GB

\- Dell MD3000 w/ 4TB disk

\- APC rack

\- 3kva ups

\- Dell TL2000

the smaller config can scale to 2 servers max.

the larger can go as big as you want.

[Paul_B1]

Yes, we're looking at HP DL380 G5's at the moment. These are SMALL sites, 5-20 users total. The cost of the actual server would be the same as if we were to replace the "Multi Funtion" servers we currently have with the same exact design (everything on one windows box).

I think by using VMware Starter, licensing the physical box with DataCenter Edition we can come out at about the same price and separate each server by function which will ease some of the management headaches. We definitely aren't LOSING anything by going to VMware.

I guess I was just curious how people handle expanding storage if the time comes. Add additional disks to the array, and make the new space a new VMFS volume?

The other question is Licensing. Since all versions of ESX are for 2 procs, can you buy one license and cover 2 single processor machines? I'm guessing no, but VirtualCenter just adds licenses to the "pool" so does it know how many different boxes they're assigned to?

Message was edited by:

Paul.B

[acr]

The other question is Licensing. Since all versions

of ESX are for 2 procs, can you buy one license and

cover 2 single processor machines?

VMware minimum License is for Two Processors (Physical Sockets that is, not Cores)

[Paul_B1]

The other question is Licensing. Since all

versions

of ESX are for 2 procs, can you buy one license

and

cover 2 single processor machines?

VMware minimum License is for Two Processors

(Physical Sockets that is, not Cores)

Yes, I understand that. But does that mean those 2 procs HAVE to be on the same physical machine? If I buy 1 License, and 2 Single proc DL380's am I covered?

[nolent]

The problem with the current generation of HP servers is that the drive capacity of SAS is not comparable to what we used to have with the previous generation. The DL380G4 had 6x Ultra320 slots, and you could get 300 gig 10k rpm drives. Assuming raid5, that was 1.5 terrabytes of storage. With the current max size SAS drive of 146 gig, you have a max capacity of just over 1 terrabyte. If you have a requirement to use a hot spare, you still have 1.2 terrabytes on a G4 and 840 gig on a G5. According to my HP rep, they do not have an ETA on 300 gig SAS drives, or even 15k 146 gig drives. All the server manufacturers are in the same boat when it comes to this. Performance is worse on the servers from a disk I/O because you are stuck using 10k drives if you need something larger than 72g drives. In my opinion, they should not have transitioned away from SCSI until they had adequite capacity/performance drives which we were used to from the previous generation. Thats why my company bought G4's up until they were discontinued. I think its nuts to advocate a SAN at every branch office. That would be a nightmare ot manage, and expensive as all. If you need the capacity, you can get an MSA or one of the Storageworks drive chassis' if they still make those. Or you can go the ML570 route, the new ones have a rediculous ammount of drive slots. But remember, they dont make 15k 146g drives, so if you need performance, you are limited to 72g drives.

[Paul_B1]

Our HP reps said the rumor on 300GB drives is late 07 or early 08, but nothing confirmed at this time.

[daniel_uk]

Paul,

I have just deployed the same type of configuration.

ESX Starter (DL380 G3) which hosts;

-File Server (have shrunk storage and will expand as and when)

-DC

-SMS

-Application server

This only has 1 Proc and I bought 2 Processor licenses on the Starter pack so I can do this on my next site.

This was a pilot on a low risk site which is in close reach and has IT staff on site. I would recommend pilotting it on a low risk site and then if it is successfull then go for it. The problems we had are CD in drives when installing ESX and when P2Ving, network infrastructure dosnt tend to be as good as a datacenter on remote sites also.

For hardware why not go for a U320 option on the 385? This gives you a RAID 5 of just under 1TB.

Dan

[AnthonyM]

As far as licensing, Starter or Standard would

do..

Keep in mind that Starter will not allow the use of

shared type of storage (i.e. iSCSI or FC, possibly

not NAS? Not sure on that)

I have starter, NAS is available, as is iSCSI, limits are 4GB RAM and no vSMP.

[Paul_B1]

I have starter, NAS is available, as is iSCSI, limits

are 4GB RAM and no vSMP.

Starter allows for up to 8GB according to the spec sheets.

[Paul_B1]

Paul,

I have just deployed the same type of configuration.

ESX Starter (DL380 G3) which hosts;

-File Server (have shrunk storage and will expand as

and when)

-DC

-SMS

-Application server

This only has 1 Proc and I bought 2 Processor

licenses on the Starter pack so I can do this on my

next site.

This was a pilot on a low risk site which is in close

reach and has IT staff on site. I would recommend

pilotting it on a low risk site and then if it is

successfull then go for it. The problems we had are

CD in drives when installing ESX and when P2Ving,

network infrastructure dosnt tend to be as good as a

datacenter on remote sites also.

For hardware why not go for a U320 option on the 385?

This gives you a RAID 5 of just under 1TB.

Dan

How's your deployment going? Any issues or concerns outside of the network so far? How's the other performance (disk and such) on a smaller box?

I know all of our remote sites are at least 100MB switched with much of that being upgraded to 1000Mb due to video conferencing requirements, so hopefully that will take care of itself.

[AnthonyM]

I have starter, NAS is available, as is iSCSI,

limits

are 4GB RAM and no vSMP.

Starter allows for up to 8GB according to the spec

sheets.

Sorry, my mistake, kit wrong key

Just wanted to make the point that Starter != local storage only.

[daniel_uk · Accepted solution]

Intial testing has gone well.

I am a great believer that fail to prepare...prepare to fail so we monitor our candidates extensively. We use a product called Zenoss for archived stats.

Disk usage and Processor utilisation is very low, its amazing really how much waste goes into a remote site infrastructure set.

On the network front its on 100MB and i doubt my users will notice, its funny as Virtual played its role in allow more network ports on site to be freed as the switch was full when the esx host got put in.

Dan

[Paul_B1]

Thanks for all the input. I think we're going to pilot a DL380G5, 4GB Ram, ESX Starter, and 4 or 5 146GB drives at some close offices. We'll see how it goes.

[daniel_uk]

Yeh close is the best option, remember to put ILO on too!!!!

Also out of interest are you based in Holland or USA?

[CPetro]

Yeh close is the best option, remember to put ILO on too!!!!

+1 on this.

The ILO/DRAC/RAS/Serial console is the first you get configured/working on new hardware. It's the least sexy, boring, and in your excitement you're likely to neglect it, but then you, or the new kid you hired to off-load your work completely horks your network configuration and some bored, frustrated Techy from 3 timezones away is trying to talk you through redoing the network over the command line you'll thank the deity of your choice that you have it set up and working.

[Paul_B1]

Yeah, we configure the ILO's at any site that doesn't have an IP KVM so that won't be an issue.

I'm in Holland Michigan, but I'll be traveling all over Europe this summer as we replace our Intel Hardware at various manufacturing and sales offices (and throw ESX in as well).]