Nice discussion but there are some missing details from Double-Take’s point of view.

DT has different solutions to replicate Hyper-V in DR with/without a CVS implementation.
A * Without CSV – we have two possibilities:
A1. a stretch cluster implementing as extention of the MSFT Multi-Site Cluster
A2. a host level replication for Hyper-V hosts (like VEEAM for VMware). DT Virtual Host for Hyper-V is a specific product constructed to replicate the active VM from an Hyper-V to another Hyper-V. Cluster to cluster is supported.

B * with CSV * Double-Take has a protection for Cluster Shared Volume: for a real-time consistent replication you need to check the VRA technology for Hyper-V (Virtual Recovery Assistant). The same implementation has been done for VMware and it’s a sort of SRM for heterogeneous storage:
http://userblog.doubletake.com/2009/09/03/double-take-101-series-virtual-recovery-assistant/

best,
Antonio

Interesting discussion guys. I am currently evaluating the CSV alternative from Sanbolic. Will let you know my findings in a future blog

Regards,
Hans Vredevoort
MVP Cluster

CSV is a distributed orchestration layer on top of NTFS and for fragmentation it takes advantage of all the NTFS techniques. So again, nothing special here… exactly the same logic as a non-clustered normal NTFS volume.

Iceman I’m a little confused by your comments… in my goal to provide technical answers, remember that CSV is not required for Hyper-V Live Migration or SCVMM Storage Quick Migration. CSV is an enabling technology that simplifies storage management, which customers are free to leverage as they please. Additionally, Failover Clustering has a very flexible plug-in storage model which allows ISV’s to plug in as well. So it is supported to do Live Migration with a wide range of scenarios, including such things such as 3rd party host based software replication, 3rd party hardware based storage replication, or 3rd party clustered file systems. We empower customers to choose what’s right for them.

CSV is not in beta, it is an RTM’d feature available in Windows Server 2008 R2 which was released over a year ago (at this point). The vast majority of Hyper-V deployments are clustered and use CSV. The install base with CSV is quite significant at this point with a year of heavy usage under it’s belt, it’s quite tried and true at this point.

Tip: Protecting me from malware is not a good reason, ok? I don’t have this concern on VMWARE.

Davi.

a) How about Red Hat Linux GFS: R/W to a VolumeGroup (wowww) regardless the technology, filetype or application?

b) I can’t see how the CSV can stripe its volume across some LUNs thru controllers/paths to maximize performance. I read tool much about a hypothetical scenario when the node lost its connection to the storage. I would like to see good points about MS solution when 40 VMs are running at 70% CPU, eating I/O from the storage virtualizing DB, AD, FS, Applications etc for 1.000+ users.

Come on guys, MS is loosing the battle to Linux, VMWare and IBM POWER VM (which in my opinion is the best VM “server” nowadays)…..

However, the great joke is my clients asking me to deploy Hyper-V and Hyper-V + CSV on their datacenters regardless CVS is beta or not (haha I have seen that kind of disclaimer all across my beta softwares). God bless us!

Regards,

Davi

So how does CSV on NTFS handles disk fragmentation besides the OS Level?

I applaud VMFS because this file system is built for VIRTUALIZATION PLATFORM from the day of creation 12 YEARS AGO (THAT’S HOW SOLID THIS TECHNOLOGY IS) and DOESN’T NEED IT.

And IF SOMEONE CAN GET ME A GOOD ARGUMENT THAT SETTING UP CSV JUST TO HAVE SIMILAR FUNCTIONALITY SIMILAR TO VMWARE STORAGEVMOTION IS NOT CONVOLUTED PROCESS, GO AHEAD LET ME KNOW VERSUS VMFS NO SPECIAL CONFIGURATION – IT IS READY TO ROLL # SIMPLY JUST AMAZING TECHNOLOGY THERE!

The processors memory, I/O bus everything starting getting faster. Now they want us all again to move to a mainframe envirenment. After all, Virtualization is the same theory as mainframe computing.

What we should really be angry about and as Industry prrofessionals, DEMAND, is that applications be able to run on the hardware without needing a layer of virtualization. After all, this is the only reason to virtualize is becouse those DAM applications will crash our machines if we put a bunch of them on the same machine!!!

The processors memory, I/O bus everything starting getting faster. But even now they really havent broxen out of the x86 architecture -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
When they do, then what happens to the hypervisor? If the programers pull the plug on all this and program applications like, Exchanage, SQL, Oracle, SharePoint, Etc… to run on the same machine without actually needing to use a virtualization encapsulation and prevent one application from screwing up another application, what happens to Virtualization? If we have come this far, tell me, should it really be hard to do?

So is Virtualization just another phase that the hardware companies are using to get us to purchase bigger, faster, machines that they are building?

And why should we even need virtualization if applications are programed correctly in the first place to work efficiently on the hardware?

By the way, I love both technologies and think Microsoft and Vmware have BOTH done a good job in responding to this ever complex evolving computing envirenment!