Link to home
Create AccountLog in
Avatar of janhoedt
janhoedt

asked on

SSD's local in sharkoon as shared storage via ESXi 5.1?

Hi,

Please see https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27932120/Esxi-5-local-raid.html?anchorAnswerId=38590697#a38590697

To simplify my setup, I wonder if it would be possible to use a sharkoon with SSD's in an ESXi, then set as shared storage?
In previous versions of ESXi, it made sense to run a SAN (as mentioned in other ticket), but with new feature of 5.1, isn't it simpeler to run the sharkoon + SSD's as local storage ... if it is configurable of course.
Note: as seperate machine/NAS/SAN the option mentioned in other ticket is of course much better.

Thanks for your input.
J.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Link to home
membership
Create an account to see this answer
Signing up is free. No credit card required.
Create Account
Avatar of janhoedt
janhoedt

ASKER

? Don't get it: "VMware vSphere Storage Appliance (VSA) transforms the local storage within your servers into a shared storage resource that runs your virtualized applications. "

Isn't it a feature of 5.1 to set local storage as shared storage? So, if I upgrade to 5.1 and add a RAID, then ESX sees it as one disk?
? Don't get it: "VMware vSphere Storage Appliance (VSA) transforms the local storage within your servers into a shared storage resource that runs your virtualized applications. "

Yes, that's correct. VMware is not just the only vendor with a VSA option.

Isn't it a feature of 5.1 to set local storage as shared storage? So, if I upgrade to 5.1 and add a RAID, then ESX sees it as one disk?

Yes, using VMware vSphere Storage Appliance (VSA)
Ok, you will be right. Still I don't understand what the extra appliance is for.

*RAID is configured on hardware/microserver, so the ESX sees the different disks as one disks, right?
*Shared storage is a feature of 5.1
What does the appliance add for extra value (besides costing lots of money)?
J.
you add virtual disks to the appliance, which will be stored on the VMFS datastore (RAID array), and the iSCSI connection from the ESXi server connects to the Appliance iSCSI Target.

So it's a Virtual Machine with storage running on ESXi, which is your SAN.

ESX just detects a volume provided by the raid storage controller for the VMFS datastore.

Where are you quoting Shared storage is a feature of 5.1 from?
>ESX just detects a volume provided by the raid storage controller for the VMFS datastore.
Correct, so 1 volume, consisting of multiple SSD's, correct?
If ESXi sees 1 volume and it is a shared volume, why the appliance?

>Where are you quoting Shared storage is a feature of 5.1 from?
http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2012/09/vmotion-without-shared-storage-requirement-does-it-have-a-name.html
that article just states you can vMotion without Shared Storage.

The appliance is needed to create the Shared Storage.

A standalone ESXi server with a VMFS partition cannot be shared.
So I completely misunderstood?

In a previous post I mentioned, f.e. ESX1, ESX2, vm on local storage ESX2 can "run"/use resources of ESX1 thanks to new 5.1 feature.
Understood that this was possible.

If it is, an appliance would not be needed, but apparenlty my statement is not correct ...?
Yes, I'm afraid you have mis-understood.

there is no new feature in 5.1 which allows to share storage from an ESXi server to another ESXi server.

You would need to use e.g. VMware vSphere VSA or other vendors product.
Sigh, back to square one :-)

Ok and your solution compared to this storage solution?
Will the vsa/your san take lots of performance?
it's adequate for our testing lab needs, but it's no replacement for a true SAN.

Bottleneck is the Processor on the Host e.g. N40L, but the trade off is lower power at 40 Watts of electricity.

to build a good SAN needs lots of I/O, disk cage with 8-14 disks, for high throughput, but depends on your budget.
Thanks.

Thought it over:
*dedicated microserver for san/nas is to powerintensive, budgetudfriendly for my lab; now see that I better shutdown 1esx of 3 when not used, power consumption is to high (my solar panels should cover all electricity usage, they did, not anymore when 3rd esx runs all the time)

*option of adding sharkoon in esx looks good but still a lot of questions (will cpu be overloaded, can esx still function as esx or only as nas/san ....), waste of money and time when it doesn t meet up to expectations.  Then also: limited support: what if I m stuck, can t fully configure, appreciate your input a lot but it s the only input, will not find a lot googling and it is not officially supported

Then again: when raising memory of esx-es to 16 gb each (8 now), it would be perfect when working ok: 2 esx-es can do all the work, 3rd I power on only when needed (but can Esx with san/nas vm function as full esx, running vm s? (cpu/mem-wise?))

also: what about netwirk traffic to 1 host as a san , will it cope, if my nottleneck changes from disk to network I m again back to square one

*vsa: to much trouble with uncertain outcome: bios issue etc

*extra nas= extra power consumption, but most certain option, still then din t know which to buy for let s say 300 euro s
Our Microservers consume = 40 watts of electricity, hence why we moved to them from a 2GB FC SAN. They do not get more economic than that, but you have to accept the Microserver is a low power device, with a low power CPU, and that becomes the bottleneck. It's a trade off between low power and performance.

If you do not have the skills, to manage ZFS, I would avoid, plenty of Websites out there on the Net, though!

Again, watch the CPU it's the bottleneck.

I think you are looking for technical requirement that does not exist within your budget, and constraints and requirements.
Ok, thanks, you re right. I only try to get best of both worlds.
Clear to me now though: cpu is already heavily loaded with sql server, I ll have to go for budget nas. However, I will buy ssd s which can fit in sharkoon, so this will be still an option later.
Thanks a lot for your help. I ll close the question. Any input on iscsi nas for my budget (few 100 euro s)? Thought of Synology 4 bay
Synology /Ds411J
Marvell 1.2 GHz processor (Soc)
128 MB (RAM)4 3,5 inch HDD
1 Gigabit ethernet
2 Usb 2.0
then 4 ssd s, it would be expensive  with raid5, so maybe sata s?
This would be
Like the drobo but no resellers here and expensive.