[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today


Virtual Disk Space - understanding 2T-4T data.

Posted on 2013-10-27
Medium Priority
Last Modified: 2013-11-12
I've been asked to build a server that will house 2T to 4T of data, couple questions come to mind:
1. Is there any significance in going the virtual route? I'd prefer to go this route rather than creating more hardware.
2. To elaborate on the above question is there any compression when virtualizing?
3. Regarding hardware there may be other projects that large amounts of data are needed, one reason virtualization seems like a better route.
Question by:WORKS2011
LVL 125

Accepted Solution

Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert / EE MVE^2) earned 668 total points
ID: 39604555
1. Physical or virtual can host large data sets virtual has larger benefits Disaster Recovery Replication Backup and Restore.

2. There is compression available in a Windows OS but not at the virtual layer.

3. We prefer to use NAS devices rather than file servers for large data sets no Windows OS required SAN snapshots for backup and restore and the benefit of faster access to files and the ability to use DeDuplication to reduce storage required.
LVL 13

Assisted Solution

by:Daniel Helgenberger
Daniel Helgenberger earned 668 total points
ID: 39604576
Most of my points below are from the storage perspective:
1. Virtualization adds complexity while yielding flexibility. In my opinion the gained flexibility outweighs this disadvantage by far, but this is yours to decide. This flexibility includes being able to overprovision and doing live migrations if you need high availability.

2. Virtual Machines can utilize any number of disk types, even whole devices and complete physical disks. This is why it is not so much a question of compression but rather overhead. Any virtual environment creates performance overheads which may be considerable. If disk performance is an issue, you need fast disks as with physical machines. Also, the use of paravirtualization is essential here, as it keeps the mentioned overhead in check. For instance KVM/libvirt runs VMs at about 90% of the storage performance with virtio drivers.
But for your question, there are compressed thin provisioned formats as virtual disk; in reality a file, which takes up only as much space as there is real data but the VM 'sees' a huge disk.

3. If you have these large amounts of data and want to virtualize, consider investing in a 'virtualized' storage solution which supports easy LUN management, thin  provisioning, HSM and snapshotting; also converged networking may be a key. These features play really well with virtual machines and help you to isolate the (virtual) machine from your precious data.
This enables you to easily recreate a new VM with the 'old' data and move it around physical machines.
LVL 17

Author Comment

ID: 39604628
Thank you, let me know if I need to create another question I have no problem doing so, do you recommend NAS or SAN to expand network storage with a virtual environment?
The 14th Annual Expert Award Winners

The results are in! Meet the top members of our 2017 Expert Awards. Congratulations to all who qualified!

LVL 17

Author Comment

ID: 39604632
Actually I see hanccocka already answered in on this, thanks
LVL 97

Assisted Solution

by:Lee W, MVP
Lee W, MVP earned 664 total points
ID: 39604700
Just a note - when installing a new server, the question shouldn't be "is virtualization a good idea" it should be "are there any reasons not to?"

I prefer SANs for storage.  To me, they are more flexible... if your requirements change you can use that storage for other things and windows supports Dedupe features.
LVL 13

Expert Comment

by:Daniel Helgenberger
ID: 39605250
For your virtual environment environment you do not need a SAN per se, though it might be beneficial if you have other needs for that storage, like file servers. For your setup, if both servers will need to access the same data, you might be much better off with a SAN.

it should be "are there any reasons not to?"
leew makes a good point here. But this highly depends on your environment. If you need to virtualize only one or two machines, then you may be better off with physical servers. But from experience once you have this infrastructure, you are adding a lot more VMs; making it worthwhile and your hardware better working to capacity - saving space and energy.
A good read, the NetApp best practices with KVM. Most of the things are is true for all hypervisors and storage components:
LVL 17

Author Closing Comment

ID: 39642506
thank you everyone, I took all these to heart not just dividing out points.

Featured Post

Learn to develop an Android App

Want to increase your earning potential in 2018? Pad your resume with app building experience. Learn how with this hands-on course.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Windows Server 2003 introduced persistent Volume Shadow Copies and made 2003 a must-do upgrade.  Since then, it's been a must-implement feature for all servers doing any kind of file sharing.
What is the biggest problem in managing an exchange environment today? It is the lack of backups, disaster recovery (DR) plan, testing of the DR plan or believing that it won’t happen to us.
This tutorial will walk an individual through the process of installing the necessary services and then configuring a Windows Server 2012 system as an iSCSI target. To install the necessary roles, go to Server Manager, and select Add Roles and Featu…
In this video, Percona Director of Solution Engineering Jon Tobin discusses the function and features of Percona Server for MongoDB. How Percona can help Percona can help you determine if Percona Server for MongoDB is the right solution for …
Suggested Courses

612 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question