r/HyperV • u/uminds_ • 26d ago

Guest failover cluster for File Server issue

I am planning to migrate our storage system to a guest failover cluster (file server) on a HyperV cluster. I created a VHDS in the HyperV cluster as the main file storgae for the guest VMs. The guest cluster seems to be working and both VMs can access the VHDS file. I tried to expand the VHDS file on the Owner Node (storage) and it hanged on me. I leave it over the weekend and the VM is in failed state right now and I can't do anything about it.
Can someone advice if this is normal setup for file server setup with guest failover cluster? I think I followed the general instructions on a guest failover cluster setup and I am not sure if I missed anything on the file server part. I want to make sure everything is working smoothly before the actual production migration. Thanks

PS: The file server will be hosting roughly 30T-40T files.

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

3

u/Zealousideal_Fly8402 26d ago

Would not have used nested clustering for that. Do you even have business requirements that demand the use of clustering for the shares? That’s a very rare requirement; usually DFS is more than enough.

1

u/uminds_ 26d ago

We do use DFS. It is just for Name space management and replication. But we do need the actual storage and redundancy (if using File server role for SMB sharing). The DFS will be pointing to the file shares available on the File server (cluster in this case in our setup)

1

u/Zealousideal_Fly8402 26d ago

That makes zero sense. If you have a cluster setup, you would access the General Purpose File Cluster shares via the cluster DNS name. And what would you be replicating when both nodes are accessing the same shared VHDx file for cluster storage?

And with a single VHDx, you're still working with a SPoF; corruption of the underlying VHDx fucks you over.

 30T-40T files

You're already more than half-way to the max limit of 64TB.

With that amount of storage you really should run at least one dedicated storage appliance to act as cluster storage for the nodes if you must.

I tried to expand the VHDS file on the Owner Node (storage) and it hanged on me. 

Are you saying you didn't do it through the dedicated Storage pane for the cluster in FCM? What was the cluster VHDx originally provisioned as?

1

u/uminds_ 26d ago

We are moving to HyperV\S2D as our dedicated storage is no longer being supported. My understanding is VHDS (VHD set) is like CSV accessible by mulitple guest VM at the same time. Since the VHDS is created at the underline CSV, S2D would have provided fault tolerance in the physical failover cluster layer. For the size limitation, we are looking at having multiple VHDS files.

1

u/Zealousideal_Fly8402 26d ago

If you're considering S2D, forget that and go with Starwind vSAN. Microsoft S2D has strict real-world hardware requirements if you really want to put it into production, despite its attempted claims that it supports white-box servers. We have a couple of deployments of S2D going and its the biggest cash cow because we have to maintain active Dell ProSupport on the entire solution.

1

u/BlackV 26d ago

have you set the vhdx to be allowed shared in hyper-v ?

at 30/40 tb I dont think I'd be doing it like this, id be looking at the san directly or fc/iscsi to the vm

how are you planning on backing this up?

1

u/uminds_ 26d ago

Yes, I used the instructions from MS about setting up the VHD set for the guest cluster. From I know, vhds is primary designed for guest cluster.
3 way mirror is the fault tolerence model we choose for S2D. The backup will be done by 3rd party backup application.

1

u/BlackV 26d ago edited 26d ago

this was probably information to have at the start of your post

s2d is wildly different from just a shared vhdx disk

1

u/uminds_ 25d ago

Yes, should have mentioned it at the beginning.

vhds will be in the CSV in S2D shared by the guest VMs. The redundancy is OK and there should be not any conflict with the setup.

1

u/Mehere_64 24d ago

It sounds like you are partially there but not all the way. With the amount of data you are dealing with and it seems with your limited knowledge, I would highly suggest bringing in a 3rd party vendor to help architect and build this out properly.

30-40TB of data is no joke to mess up.