Failover Cluster Shared Storage

[JamesNT]

Everyone,

We've been using Dell solutions for our Hyper-V Failover Clusters. However, Dell's price tag seems to be going in only one direction. Therefore, we'd like some advice from those of you out in the field as to what you are using for shared storage solutions. I prefer Direct Attached Storage, but I'll settle for iSCSI if I gotta.

So what say thee, my friends? What do you use for your shared storage for fail over clustering? And no, moving to Azure/AWS is not the answer I'm looking for.

JamesNT

[HannesK]

Hello,
as far as I know, many vendors support direct attached (fibre channel) storage today (well, at least for VMware).

If you mean SAS with direct attached, I only remember Dell / Netapp / IBM / Lenovo (maybe even more OEM vendors) which are all the same boxes just with different labels.

If you post your requirements (amount of data, number of hosts / VMs, IO requirements, etc.), maybe someone could help you better than my very generic answer.

Best regards,
Hannes

[JamesNT]

Hello,

We have a few clients with failover clusters. All of those clusters are two node hyper-v clusters. Shared storage is typically a Dell MD3200. Disks are usually 10k or 15k SAS drives. VMs number in the dozen or so. Data can be anywhere from 5 to just over a dozen terabytes. Domain controllers, a SQL Server here at there, file servers, and so on. Users per client are anywhere from 20 to 60.

We are looking for more affordable solutions to Dell.

JamesNT

[HannesK]

yep, what you have as Dell MD is something I used as IBM DS 3000 / 4000 branded some years ago. These boxes are available also as Netapp E-Series, Lenovo DE-series (maybe also other vendors).

If you are happy with the boxes and you only look for a better price, then I would ask other OEM vendors for pricing.

[nmdange]

Nowadays I would almost always go with Storage Spaces Direct / Azure Stack HCI over SAN Storage.

[johan.h]

If you want to decouple the setup a bit further you could also look at SOFS for this.

[JRRW]

Keep in mind that protection of SOFS and such requires veeam agents vs native hyper-v.

As with the others, it depends on what your end goal is / what solution you use now is.

'Many' SAN vendors allow you to direct connect, but not all. Nimble, PureStorage, Compellent at least do not - they require you to use a SAN Switch between hosts and Storage. 3PAR I know does, and while I'm not a fan of the upkeep, it's very powerful and lets you customize nearly everything. But most of the 'Easy Button' vendors like Nimble/Pure need a SAN switch (iSCSI or FC).

Dell has their VRTX line which allows sharing storage between up to 4 nodes, giving you another option - but it's Dell, still.

[HannesK]

Keep in mind that protection of SOFS and such requires veeam agents vs native hyper-v.

can you maybe describe a little bit more in detail what kind of setup you mean?

[JamesNT]

We just installed a new Dell EMC M34024 at a client office that is Fiber Channel. No Fiber Channel switch required. Just direct connect the fiber cables from the controllers to the HBAs and it auto-configs. Just like SAS HBAs.

The Dell ME4 line is extremely nice, and I do adore it, but still pricey.

JamesNT

[JamesNT]

'Many' SAN vendors allow you to direct connect, but not all.

Can you name some of the "many" that you trust?

JamesNT

[JRRW]

Define "Trust"
3PAR does EXTREMELY well with this (as in 6+ dual connected hosts per 2-node management) and Nimble offered at one point a DAS option (not sure if they still do) - both HPE now but not bad products.

Dell ME4 has the bonus imho of tiering and a relatively low price point.

Synology and QNAP technically offer enterprise redundant controller SANs as well that offer direct connections.

At one point the EMC lineup let you, but this would require investigation as things may have changed with their evolution under Dell.