XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Tesco and XCP-ng

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    16 Posts 4 Posters 192 Views 4 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • olivierlambertO Online
      olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
      last edited by

      I won't be against it obviously. But I'm not the one making the choice 😄

      P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • P Offline
        Pilow @olivierlambert
        last edited by

        @olivierlambert just for fun of thought.
        How could Vates stack handle 40K servers farm ?

        I suppose TESCO have multiple in house datacenters, and not 40K servers in one place but anyway...
        Can this tech handle 40K servers in one XOA with attached sites by XO Proxies ?

        way above recommend limits isnt it ?
        don't remember the max number of servers per pool

        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J Offline
          john.c @Pilow
          last edited by john.c

          @Pilow said:

          @olivierlambert just for fun of thought.
          How could Vates stack handle 40K servers farm ?

          I suppose TESCO have multiple in house datacenters, and not 40K servers in one place but anyway...
          Can this tech handle 40K servers in one XOA with attached sites by XO Proxies ?

          way above recommend limits isnt it ?
          don't remember the max number of servers per pool

          If it’s the same as the Xen Server limit, then hosts 64 per pool.

          So would need to split the 40K servers over multiple pools, if all identical each with 64 hosts until reach that number. The number of pools would still be very high, at least until the per pool limit can be raised to 1,000 to 2,000 per pool, or around that amount!

          P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P Offline
            Pilow @john.c
            last edited by

            @john.c yeah i'm assuming the 40K is probably VMs, so better density of physical servers
            anyway, big players...

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierlambertO Online
              olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
              last edited by

              Even with existing customer with that many VMs or host, absolutely nobody will do a giant pool. And in the ROBO/edge world, it's mostly 2 or 3 machines per shop.

              Even large DC deployments tend to use around 10 hosts per pool (a good sweetspot between convenience and fallout protection in case you have a problem on a pool).

              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D Offline
                DustinB @olivierlambert
                last edited by

                @olivierlambert said:

                Even with existing customer with that many VMs or host, absolutely nobody will do a giant pool. And in the ROBO/edge world, it's mostly 2 or 3 machines per shop.

                Even large DC deployments tend to use around 10 hosts per pool (a good sweetspot between convenience and fallout protection in case you have a problem on a pool).

                Yeah, having 40K VMs or enough hosts to support that many VMs in a single pool would be career suicide to have a single giant pool. Especially since you can just setup cross pool replication.

                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J Offline
                  john.c @DustinB
                  last edited by

                  @DustinB said:

                  @olivierlambert said:

                  Even with existing customer with that many VMs or host, absolutely nobody will do a giant pool. And in the ROBO/edge world, it's mostly 2 or 3 machines per shop.

                  Even large DC deployments tend to use around 10 hosts per pool (a good sweetspot between convenience and fallout protection in case you have a problem on a pool).

                  Yeah, having 40K VMs or enough hosts to support that many VMs in a single pool would be career suicide to have a single giant pool. Especially since you can just setup cross pool replication.

                  Though the article doesn’t make clear whether it’s 40K hosts, of virtualisation software stacks or like said 40K VMs. Either way with the growing size of infrastructure, being able to support more than the 64 hosts per pool, would be something good to aim for with XCP-ng between 9.0 and 10.0.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • olivierlambertO Online
                    olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                    last edited by olivierlambert

                    I'm not sure it's a great idea, because even 64 hosts is huge in terms of VMs and fallout if you have a problem on your pool DB. Even if you drastically improve the current mechanism, the impact of a problem pool wide is far bigger with 64 hosts than 24 for example.

                    It's more than purely tech, it's also a tech design/choice.

                    J D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J Offline
                      john.c @olivierlambert
                      last edited by

                      @olivierlambert said:

                      I'm not sure it's a great idea, because even 64 hosts is huge in terms of VMs and fallout if you have a problem on your pool DB. Even if you drastically improve the current mechanism, the impact of a problem pool wide is far bigger with 64 hosts than 24 for example.

                      It's more than purely tech, it's also a tech design/choice.

                      We can stick with the 64 hosts per pool, was just wondering how far it could stretch!

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D Offline
                        DustinB @olivierlambert
                        last edited by

                        @olivierlambert said:

                        I'm not sure it's a great idea, because even 64 hosts is huge in terms of VMs and fallout if you have a problem on your pool DB. Even if you drastically improve the current mechanism, the impact of a problem pool wide is far bigger with 64 hosts than 24 for example.

                        It's more than purely tech, it's also a tech design/choice.

                        Exactly, the failure domain just grows exponentially when going beyond a certain collective pool size.

                        I was doing some more research and I found a few possible choices that Tesco may have moved too, but don't want to detract from this forum here.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                        Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                        Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                        With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                        Register Login
                        • First post
                          Last post