ScCale Hyperconvergence - No Pain all Gain
December 11, 2017
ScCale Hyperconvergence - No Pain all Gain
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Scale Computing HC3
Our existing infrastructure was getting old. The hardware was excellent and provided more than adequate performance. Apart from the insecurity of age the only complaints were from the IT team. It was taking too much work to maintain.
The 3 node Scale cluster replacees and aging infrastructure of Linux Red Hat/HP hosts running 80% of the company's virtual servers. The Scale cluster will essentially run our company. When all VMs have been moved over to the cluster It will encompass Windows a windows domain controller, our MRP system, several database servers, analytics, and server and network monitoring appliances. A remote Scale node acts as a backup to the cluster and maintains daily backups with varying retention to reflect daily, weekly and monthly, and quarterly backups. We have moved about 30% of the infrastructure to the scale cluster.
The 3 node Scale cluster replacees and aging infrastructure of Linux Red Hat/HP hosts running 80% of the company's virtual servers. The Scale cluster will essentially run our company. When all VMs have been moved over to the cluster It will encompass Windows a windows domain controller, our MRP system, several database servers, analytics, and server and network monitoring appliances. A remote Scale node acts as a backup to the cluster and maintains daily backups with varying retention to reflect daily, weekly and monthly, and quarterly backups. We have moved about 30% of the infrastructure to the scale cluster.
- The ease of use of the Scale interface is fantastic. All the basics are within easy reach and more complex tools are readily accessible. I'm used to simple interfaces meaning limited scope and simplistic products. But the scale interface is on top of a very sophisticated and powerful system. The interface works so well it needs no training to use - having said that training always helps.
- Scale's Remote replication is fantastic. Setting up and applying a schedule and setting a lifespan for the replicated images was a breeze. Initiating the replication was a single click and the replication was fast. Replicated VM's could be cloned and started in seconds. Restoring data for users was so fast my users were not ready to deal with the quick results.
- Scales continually impresses me with the way the product is maturing. Their product road map is not merely a future wish list. New features are regularly being delivered and delivered on schedule.
- Installation and set up is FAST. the longest part was mounting the hardware and connecting the interfaces. Scale technicians held my hand from power on to instantiating a new VM. It mas more of a formality than a necessity.
- Their tech support is effective. The best I have ever seen. Their staff are astute and great communicators. Follow up is quick, and they often log in and resolve the problem without my having to generate and upload logs. They minimise my work and maximise interaction. The unusual part is how they communicate among themselves. On a single issue i spoke to multiple staff and they all were aware of case. I never had to repeat the details of the problem or the steps taken.
- We have been importing all of our VM's fairly easily. There is a need for improvement with the import process for non HC3 VMs. It works but is the only poorly executed part of the HC3 environment i have come across. It's as if in the design of the product Scale only thought companies would be creating and working with new VM's., and forgot completely about migrations from other systems. HC3 easily imports and exports Scale VM's directly from the Interface in a single step. But, non HC3 images, even if they are qcow2 images just like HC3's, require a multi-step process. Having said that, the process is not complex at all. Apparently this will be corrected in a future release.
- Pricing. Wow! A friend in another company opted for a competing HCI system. It took about 3 months to get the system fully installed and stable. But the ongoing costs of licensing Vmware and paying hardware maintenance have forced them to reconsider their purchase. They are desperate to cut costs and are planning to pull out VMware and go with KVM. With Scale I paid less and got at least equal performance without any configuration headaches.
- That raises another point. The HC3 system is fully integrated all in one solution. All the components needed for HCI, Virtualisation, VM Management, Integrated and distributed storage, and redundancy are included and fully supported. One neck to wring.
- As mentioned, Scale needs to refine the rocess used for importing non-native VM's. It is a multi step process that "fools" HC3 into thinking it a native VM. All of our VMs, except for one, are KVM. I can't comment on importing other image formats.
- HC3 has all the basics covered and does a fantastic job under the sheets. but is lagging in more modern features .Scale needs to provide applications under HC3. A "cloud" type storage service that VM's could tap into directly. A database service which would reduce the need for us to maintain database servers. A containerisation service would be an excellent addition. Currently we have to run containers in a VM, which is not optimal.
- Missing is a simple way of upgrading storage. Disks are hot swappable., but upgrading storage requires a lot of work.
Our infrastructure scales great with HC3 (pun not intended.) We have been adding VM's cloning images for testing and development without anxiety. before we were constrained by the resources of a single machine- we were consistently running out of memory or disk space. We were chasing resources across the network, porting VM's wherever we could find room. The cluster environment is like a diving into an ocean. All the resources are accessible. This simplifies development and allows me to respond with a big "YES" to my users instead of "Maybe tomorrow, i'll let you know"
- It's too early to tell how our ROI will be affected. Our estimates indicate that we will smooth our our expenditures. We expect to able to take advantage of business opportunities and provide new services faster for our dealers. We have already cut a future staff acquisition because of the ease of use of Scale system.
- The initial cost was high. Getting an entire cluster is a bigger pill to swallow than adding a new server. We mitigated the problem by delaying upgrades. When suddenly the company was faced with 4 server's needing replacement or one Scale custer with the attendant advantages over installing four new hosts, plus a DR solution, the decision became much easier.
- Maxta and Stratoscale
In the process of determining which solution to go with we short-listed Maxta, Stratoscale, and Scale. Maxta and Stratoscale were software products and Scale was the appliance. All three received the same details of our infrastructure. Interestingly the number of spindles proposed by both Maxta and Stratoscale exceeded our existing spindle count. This alerted us to the likelihood that their performance promises required that many spindles. On investigating the number of storage layers between the VM and the disk surface it became clear the Scale system was a clear winner. there were good technical reasons why scales disk management was better. Interestingly getting clear technical data out Stratoscale was harder and like pulling hen's teeth with Maxta.
Critical to our plans was the concept of simplicity. Working with all three interfaces it became clear that Scale was the winner. In addition, having to deal with hardware and software separately was a problem, even if the Maxta and Statoscale performed the integration and were willing to be the single neck, we would still be dealing with two loosely integrated product layers. We wanted the tighter integration on all the components of the system that Scale provides. Then there was the communication and vendors ability to answer questions. Hands down Scale was the winner.
The issue of Vendor lock was not a concern. This may have been true when vendor products were wildly incompatible but is a false issue in today's more standards-driven environment. Porting our VM's into the Scale environment was easy because of the standards, and porting them out in the future, if we need to, will also be easy.
Stratoscale impressed us by coming close in overall costs and even better that Scale in product scope, but in the end, it was the other factors that settled us on Scale.
Critical to our plans was the concept of simplicity. Working with all three interfaces it became clear that Scale was the winner. In addition, having to deal with hardware and software separately was a problem, even if the Maxta and Statoscale performed the integration and were willing to be the single neck, we would still be dealing with two loosely integrated product layers. We wanted the tighter integration on all the components of the system that Scale provides. Then there was the communication and vendors ability to answer questions. Hands down Scale was the winner.
The issue of Vendor lock was not a concern. This may have been true when vendor products were wildly incompatible but is a false issue in today's more standards-driven environment. Porting our VM's into the Scale environment was easy because of the standards, and porting them out in the future, if we need to, will also be easy.
Stratoscale impressed us by coming close in overall costs and even better that Scale in product scope, but in the end, it was the other factors that settled us on Scale.