VMWare vSAN supports the optimization of the data distribution to the disks as well. With vSAN Storage Policy, this isn’t hard you can even set a number of disk stripes per object. In order to create a vSAN datastore on each node, you’ll need a caching disk on each node, respectively. Well, as you know, VMWare vSAN supports a configuration “2 nodes + witness node + 2 caching disks + capacity witness”.
#STARWIND VIRTUAL SAN REVIEW SERIES#
Mellanox ConnectX-5 MCX456A-ECAT (100 GbE\s)ĥ (SSD) – Intel® SSD DC S4600 Series 480GBġ (NVMe) – Intel® Optane™ SSD DC P4800X Series 375GBġ (SSD) – Intel® SSD DC S4600 Series 480GB So, today’s goal is to compare StarWind VSAN and VMware vSAN performance with the same 2-node configuration.įirst things first, let’s build a test environment (performing testing procedures in your work infrastructure is never a good idea) and check requirements: node-Ģx Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 2.20GHz Naturally, whenever such a question arises, talking won’t do much: the only way to come up with an answer is by testing, through and through. So, with the diversity of HCI systems and hardware requirements in mind, this begets a question: are these solutions really giving away an equal performance, all things considered? I don’t need to tell you about the multitude of configurations out there. However, each IT environment is, in a way, unique. All else being equal, neither is considered better or worse. Since the market has emerged, it didn’t take long to recognize the leaders, which are StarWind Virtual SAN (VSAN) and VMware virtual SAN (vSAN). An introduction of virtual SAN solutions to the market has changed a lot, opening the way for simple storage configurations that can provide maximum possible performance with minimum possible resources required, respectively. And why not? They offer software-defined storage solutions that support HCI systems and leave external shared storage out of the picture. Virtual SANs have become the newfound Holy Grail of small infrastructures. That makes perfect sense: if you can farewell with a less complicated and resource-hungry configuration – why pay more? It doesn’t mean that they have become obsolete it’s just that many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) simply don’t require all the broad specter of services and resources that a storage area network system can offer. Our Starwind installs are for example in stadiums and in cities states like Miami, Managua (two times so far but there will be more in future), in Paris, and it will be several times in Russia in the future.As time goes on, fewer and fewer people tend to rely on cumbersome SANs. Our company is not using starwind for ourselfs, we are gold partner of ms so we do use datacenter server editions for us. So clustering is much cheaper, there is no other advantage over the win 2016 dt.
#STARWIND VIRTUAL SAN REVIEW WINDOWS#
Windows 2016 datacenter (2x license) costs much more than starwind (1x license). What does maybe needs explanations is why and that is simple. Since you know what you sell, there is no need explanation what is starwind doing there. But we do need starwind only for critical parts like hyper-v server (2 physical server in cluster). So how does the starwind fit it ? We need to control the whole system somehow.
For example led ribbons several hundread meters long inside stadium for ads (like coca cola…), if you for example saw anytime lately basketball and typical American stadium has big massive led cube above the playground, that we do also or building in place led panels like 8 meters long and 5 meters high and several other things.
Our company is helping to build energy active stadiums.