[Poll + comments] Unraid on vmware or vmware in unraid

[redia]

Hello everyone,

 

we see a few posts here and there about virtualizing.

I did not want to hijack any of these posts but I could not find any "real" comparison of the two solutions. (sorry if I missed it)

 

I am currently running unraid on

MB : supermicro X8SIL-F

Proc : i3 540... I will probably switch to a more powerfull x3470 as I believe it is the most powerful proc this mobo can handle (must check)

controller : 2 x AOC-SASLP-MV8

memory : 10GB available in my drawer, could easily get more

 

the rest of the config is more or less irrelevant.

but I am wondering in which direction I should go.

 

I would love to hear your comments/advices.

 

Cheers,

R

 

[jimwhite]

If you really think about it, it's a no-brainer! 

[ftp222]

I have used both solutions and the bottom line is if you have the hardware to support it, put unRAID on VMware ESXi.  Running VMware on top of unRAID will make any VM's you run slower and depending on what they are doing, they could be a whole lot slower.  Taking the reverse, unRAID is only VERY minimally slower running on top of VMware.

 

If you have systems that need to be on 24/7 then build an ESXi box, virtualize everything and have it over with.  You'll be happier in the end.

 

[Johnm]

either way adds a new level of issues and things to be aware of,

 

tossing your unraid box into a hypervisor sort of adds a new level to tech support that is not technically supported. but works fine.

 

without knowing your needs, a VM ontop of unraid might be a bit sluggish, but do what you need to do. but this would be easy to test.. insll it and delete it if unhappy.

 

to run unraid inside a hypervisor will be almost as fast on your hardware. be aware the MV8's are not supported by ESX. you need to apply a hack to get them to work.

 

also. you dont need the fastest processor for home. i run 8-12 vms at once and i dont max my E3-1240, it is ram and DISK IO I run out of long before CPU.. unless you're going to be using handbrake and making MKVs in a VM...

 

 

[redia]

Jimwhite,

wow, that was a very well documented answer

unfortunately I was not born with such a good brain, and I didn't feel like re-inventing the wheel as some of you have tested it already.

 

 

#####

 

 

ftp222,

thanks, I have not yet tried putting vmware on top of unraid, so I had no idea of the results...

 

#####

 

Johnm,

my needs are pretty simple. I plan to install a couple of simple vms

- a firewall,

- a small xp with a couple of things like a squeezebox server and maybe a crashplan as I think there are still some issues running them directly on unraid

- probably a converting machine.

- maybe a couple of test machines.

 

The upgrade of the processor is simply because I am building another unraid, which will be ONLY an unraid, shared with some colleagues at work.. so I will re-use the actual processor and get a better one for my machine.

I checked quickly for benchmarks... and it will make a difference eventually

Intel Xeon E31240 @ 3.30GHz 7930

Intel Core i3 540 @ 3.07GHz 2843

Intel Xeon X3470 @ 2.93GHz 6010

 

MV8 are not supported ? are you talking about the issue with vmdirectpath ? (with the fix by gfjardim http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=7914.msg128847#msg128847 that you mentionned and very clearly detailed in your thread ?) or is there anything else to worry about ?

 

I could also re-use my mv8 cards in the "new" box and get myself more appropriate one... maybe even an expander...

got to think about that to.

 

 

anyway thanks again to all of you,

R

 

 

 

[Johnm]

it sounds more like you need to go ESXi then.

 

[redia]

it sounds more like you need to go ESXi then.

 

 

great.. I favored it anyway.

it is more flexible... but I did not know if it would impact the unraid too much.

 

now I have to think on what I will be hosting my VMs...

fast HD or SSD... yeah, yeah I know SSD is faster.. but also smaller and more expansive..

 

I believe in your case you installed esx on an SSD, and created datastore on alternate disks... any particular reason why you did not use the remaining space on the installation disk for any of your machines ?

 

about the issue with the MV8 do you advise me to get other cards ? or an hba/expander combo ?

as mentioned, I don't care as I can re-use them.

 

Cheers,

R

[cj0r]

I agree this was a no brainer, unRaid running as a VM is the way to go. Any decent hardware running "underneath" unRaid would be wasted if it was reversed. Your VM's would massively suffer. It has already been proven by several members (including myself) that building a reliable ESXi based server is rather easy to do. It doesn't have to be expensive either. Mine has been up and running since Spring and I haven't had any issues that I can think of.

[Johnm]

it sounds more like you need to go ESXi then.

 

 

great.. I favored it anyway.

it is more flexible... but I did not know if it would impact the unraid too much.

 

now I have to think on what I will be hosting my VMs...

fast HD or SSD... yeah, yeah I know SSD is faster.. but also smaller and more expansive..

 

I believe in your case you installed esx on an SSD, and created datastore on alternate disks... any particular reason why you did not use the remaining space on the installation disk for any of your machines ?

 

about the issue with the MV8 do you advise me to get other cards ? or an hba/expander combo ?

as mentioned, I don't care as I can re-use them.

 

Cheers,

R

 

I installed mine to a thumbdrive.

I have 2 SSD's (on sata3 ports)  and one 7200rpm spinner running VM's then a second 5400rpm datastore for backups. in the end I still plan to go raid with 4 SSD's and get rid of the 7200 rpm spinner.

 

You are probably fine on spinners. at least to start with.

 

I did not have much choice for my SSDs. My one VM's is pounding out massive disk IO's in a database and can eat up to about 8 gigs of ram. the 500MB/s ssd's keeps this vm happy and i can still run other guests on the same disk.

 

Remember with esxi 4/5 and your current gear (plus a Xeon). the HDD will be your weakest link..err, limiting factor on performance.

 

You might consider something more robust then a single spinner if you add a converting machine. all of your other VMs would feel the disk IO's and come to a crawl while that pounds on the disk. maybe you can give that VM a passthrough disk.

 

Honestly, I think the ideal setup is on a small raid5 or 10 array on smaller drives (spinner or SSD). that way you get a decent Disk IO and redundancy if you loose a drive.

if you dont mind rebuilding in the event of a dead disk. a raid0 and backing up is not a bad plan for max IO. it is just quite risky. it will not be if, but when a drive will die.

 

if you are running your ESXi in a desktop style box. something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817998037 with 3or4 laptop drives should be cheap and good. i was getting around 500 MB/s with an areca 1222 and 4 samsung 7200 laptop drives in raid5.. maybe you can find a raid card on ebay that would perform similar. then again.. 2 SSD's would cost less.. lol

 

Setting up an esxi box is not hard. it can be cheapish for a basic ESXi box.

but.. if you put some extra cash into it. it will outperform and cost less in the end then several individual computers that might not even be as powerfull.

[redia]

I installed mine to a thumbdrive.

you installed it to a thumbdrive ?

what about the perf for the different swap files from esx. I know they are not much.. but still...

 

I have a Norco 4224 case.. so 1 parity + 1 cache + 20 HD... so I only got 2 bays available.... unless :

- I tape a drive in the available space in my box

- I follow your lead and install esx on the thumbdrive and keep the two extra disks for my datastores.

- I use a couple of e-sata disks..

 

I think I will go cheap for the beginning and try to hook a 10k disk to see how it goes.

 

to be honest I am not looking for the best possible perfs. I am aware that the hardware running is desktop material.. but I don't feel like building extra computers...

there will be no critical machine running in this environment, so loosing them is not an issue.

 

thank you so much for your comments, you have been helping me a lot.

 

Cheers,

R

[brian89gp]

I installed mine to a thumbdrive.

you installed it to a thumbdrive ?

what about the perf for the different swap files from esx. I know they are not much.. but still...

 

ESXi boots to RAM.  Its not like Windows or other OS's, it was built and meant to be run from a flash device.  The only thing you gain from installing it to a HDD is it boots a little faster, but that is it.

 

Keep in mind, this is an enterprise class OS that VMware just so happens to release for free (no doubt only to compete with the free Hyper-V...)

[Johnm]

The swap files are with the Guests, not on the flashdrive.

 

ESXi boots to ram like unraid does.

The new HP, Dell and IBM servers that are designed for ESX have an internal USB or SD flash card with ESX preinstalled with a custom OEM flavor of esx.

 

With ESX 5.x. it now has provisions for SSD's and SSD caching.

 

also, unless you already have the 10k disks (i am assuming velociraptors).

Many of the modern 7200 and some 5400 drives are out performing them now, I'd save the cash.

 

Like you, I am running in a norco 4224.

my plan for  the bays:

20 data,

1 unraid parity,

1WHS,

1Datastore (backup drive),

1 unassigned for now (maybe cache warm spare for unRAID, WHS backup drive, or download drive)

 

The rest of the drives will be 2.5" somehow internal. Datastores, unraid cache, data drive for my downloading guest.

these two posts have some good ideas for internal mounts in a 4224..

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037265642&postcount=573

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037265759&postcount=574

 

I am also considering getting a 4x 2.5" into 1 5.25" unit and mounting to the internal sidewall.

some people just velcro them to the sidewalls.

 

the only problem with internal drives is getting at them to swap them out in a failure. but mehh.. that should be far and few.