Best server solution for what I am trying to do

[The Print Craftsman]

I want to serve myself up a handful of VPS's just like what I get when I buy from Digital Ocean or AWS.  I am currently running validator nodes for a handful of Crypto Currency projects.  Initially I just ordered up whatever I needed from my VPS vendor, VULTR, and all was well.  However, this last project I am involved in requires a lot of hard drive space and the cost of the VPS to meet the necessary requirements is rather large! $320 a month to be exact.  So I have looked into getting a "Static IP" at my home address from my current internet provider, Spectrum.  They will even sell me multiple STATIC IP addresses so I am looking at probably starting out with 5 or 10.  I want to set up a server that will essentially serve up VPS instances just like I am buying from VULTR.  I am willing to learn whatever I need to.  I am also willing to spend a bit of coin to get things set up properly.  But I don't want to overspend or spend unnecessarily.  I would prefer to buy a used server off EBAY or Craigs List.  I just have no idea what type of server I should be looking for?  I am willing to buy new if that is what I should do?  I am willing to build my own if that is what I should do?  The specs I need for the VPS I want to run for this latest project would be (32 GB RAM or more, 1000 GB of Hard Drive space or more, and probably 4 to 8 CPU's).

I was looking at the Dell PowerEdge series but there are so many different product numbers I have no idea what would be a good buy or not?  I'm seeing the R320's going for around $100.  But I'm wondering if those are going to work for me or not?  I basically want to become a minature AWS provider for myself.

Thank you so much in advance for your time in reading this and any advice you can give me.  I basically just want to know what servers would work for me and/or should I just build my own?  And if I should build my own what attributes do I need to give it?

 

Randy

[mdecima]

Ok, so you want to create your own virtualization environment?, a private cloud. and create your own virtual machines ¿is that correct?

 

i think, before you decide what kind of server, you need to decide on the virtualization environment, what hypervisor are you thinking?.

Edited February 2, 2022 by mdecima
typos ftw

[Filip98]

Something like VMware on Hyper-V hypervisors I think would be the best/easiest solution. But if you need 5 instances times 4-8 cores, you would basically need either you'd need something like 20 cores, and if you use HT you would hit the upper limit (5*8) almost instantly.

 

Seems like R320 can only have E5-2400 Xeons, and they go only to 8 cores. So you'd need something much more newer gen, or semi-new and go multi socket 

 

[wseaton]

Cores have nothing to do with performance nor virtualization. Repeat: cores don't mean anything here, and per core efficacy means everything. Don't get me started on hyperthreading. An i5-12400 with it's massive 6 cores will crush most of the dual socket retired Xeon Servers on Ebay that need to find a deep lake and a rope. NUMA boundries notwithstanding.

 

When spec'ing any server for any purpose you need to ask if you need high levels of CPU horsepower, storage, or RAM. The only advantage older servers have is they are rack form factors (software doesn't care if it's in a 1U/2U/4U server) and ECC memory. The later is always a consideration. The former I don't get the fetish with.

 

We don't know either what you need, but the way to start is to break down what each hosted server will be doing and it's individual requirements. 

 

 

[The Print Craftsman]

O.K. so I have attached a set of specs which is considered reasonable to run a KSM validator node.  I understand wseaton when he indicates the actual cores in the server have nothing to do with the virtual cores of the instances I'll be running.  And while I hadn't given it any thought I will agree that mdecima is correct when he states I need to decide what kind of virtualization environment I am going to run.  This is where I am a bit fuzzy.  I'm probably going to need to do some crash learning.  I have been using virtual servers for the last several years but I have never created them or ran them.  I have only used them.  Based on wseaton's comments it sounds like I would probably be happier purchasing a modern machine and/or building my own with current processors etc.  

 

The specs listed on the attachment mention Hard Drive space of 160 GB.  But it needs to be more like 1 TB. (1000 GB). 

 

I do not need to create 5 right off the bat but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to start with a machine robust enough to handle running 5 instances.  Possibly even more???

 

So perhaps to start with I should decide on my environment. Is there open source software for this?  Or am I going to have to buy something?  I would prefer to go open source if possible.  I'm going to try looking into this but if any of you have suggestions.  I'm all ears.

[Filip98]

2 hours ago, wseaton said:

Cores have nothing to do with performance nor virtualization. Repeat: cores don't mean anything here, and per core efficacy means everything. Don't get me started on hyperthreading. An i5-12400 with it's massive 6 cores will crush most of the dual socket retired Xeon Servers on Ebay that need to find a deep lake and a rope. NUMA boundries notwithstanding.

 

When spec'ing any server for any purpose you need to ask if you need high levels of CPU horsepower, storage, or RAM. The only advantage older servers have is they are rack form factors (software doesn't care if it's in a 1U/2U/4U server) and ECC memory. The later is always a consideration. The former I don't get the fetish with.

 

We don't know either what you need, but the way to start is to break down what each hosted server will be doing and it's individual requirements. 

 

 

I never said that cores have nothing to do with performance.

 

But it is true, that in virtualization cores are usually not counted as cores, but as a representation in MHz / GHz. So I'd still say, that a 4CPUs * 5 VMs, won't get much work done on a 4 or 8 core semi old Xeon.

[Filip98]

As for the virtualisation environment, I think there are few free / kinda cheep possibilities:

 

Proxmox is usually what I hear people use, but I haven't used it.

Second is VirtualBox, which has really simple UI, and is actually pretty good considering it's free as well.

 

Then there is a semi-free / cheep option, Hyper-V. For that you only need some Win server licence, or even Win 10 Pro, which you can buy on eBay for few bucks.

 

Hyper-V would be my suggestion. Even though it technically is the only option here that's not free (bc of the Win 10 Pro licence needed / or win server licence), it is in my opinion the easiest to set up and most beginner friendly. It also has immense number of support docs on MS website.

 

I'd say, download VirtualBox, try to create some VM in there, see if you like it or not. Maybe you'll stick with it, maybe you'll want to try something else.

 

[mdecima]

3 hours ago, The Print Craftsman said:

O.K. so I have attached a set of specs which is considered reasonable to run a KSM validator node.  I understand wseaton when he indicates the actual cores in the server have nothing to do with the virtual cores of the instances I'll be running.  And while I hadn't given it any thought I will agree that mdecima is correct when he states I need to decide what kind of virtualization environment I am going to run.  This is where I am a bit fuzzy.  I'm probably going to need to do some crash learning.  I have been using virtual servers for the last several years but I have never created them or ran them.  I have only used them.  Based on wseaton's comments it sounds like I would probably be happier purchasing a modern machine and/or building my own with current processors etc. 

 

I suggested that you start by the virtual environment because there are certain differences, specially in the level of abstraction thus in performance that may affect the type of workload your VMs are being used for.

 

The type 2, is where you have a server with an operating system, for example windows and you install virtualbox that manages the abstraction layer, create your virtual machines, etc. Very simple, very fast and convenient. But because the communication between the hypervisor and the hardware is managed by the operating system, performance generally takes a toll.

 

4 hours ago, The Print Craftsman said:

 

 

The specs listed on the attachment mention Hard Drive space of 160 GB.  But it needs to be more like 1 TB. (1000 GB). 

 

I do not need to create 5 right off the bat but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to start with a machine robust enough to handle running 5 instances.  Possibly even more???

 

 

 

First, i need to understand the type of workload these VM are destined for, i'm not familiar with these polkadot, but i understand that those requirements are for "EACH" one of the 5 VM you want to create at the start? and those are going to be CPU intensive applications?

The docs mention a i7 7700K that means a 4 cores 8 threads for each node. the rough equivalent in the modern days is a Core i3 10100F that haves lower TDP and similar IPC

 

I think, that if the workload is CPU intensive and the node really have those requirements and you plan to virtualize, No consumer CPU other than a threadripper is going to be enough.

 

But..

 

If the type of workload is not that intensive, for example in bursts, you can manage with the magic of virtualization.

 

 

2 hours ago, Filip98 said:

I never said that cores have nothing to do with performance.

 

But it is true, that in virtualization cores are usually not counted as cores, but as a representation in MHz / GHz. So I'd still say, that a 4CPUs * 5 VMs, won't get much work done on a 4 or 8 core semi old Xeon.

 

And this is where the virtualization magic enters,  the "Virtual" CPUs are in reality "CPU time", the VM schedule cpu time and the hypevisor manage that schedule, this allows to "overprovision" resources and benefits greatly when the workloads in each VM are not constant,

[The Print Craftsman]

mdecima, I like your "type 1" diagram better.  I see what you are saying.  I have installed "Oracle VM VirtualBox Manager" on my Windows PC at home just so I could take a look at it.  So I get it.  I'm running it on top of my OS and then the virtual machines are run out of the VirtualBox Manager.  So pretty simple to do and pretty easy to set up.  However, I also understand what you are saying about the performance hit.  So I do want to go with the type 1 set-up you show in your reply.  Even if it is harder to set-up.

Now, regarding CPU usage.  I am going to go ahead and say that the usage will be in bursts.  I am not 100% positive but based on my experiences so far with running these nodes using my VPS provider... they do not run wide open constantly.

I'm going to monkey around with this Oracle VirtualBox Manager I downloaded.  Now I have installed it on my Windows computer.  How would I go about installing it directly onto the hardware?  Is there a version of it that installs like an OS?
 

[mdecima]

1 hour ago, The Print Craftsman said:

mdecima, I like your "type 1" diagram better.  I see what you are saying.  I have installed "Oracle VM VirtualBox Manager" on my Windows PC at home just so I could take a look at it.  So I get it.  I'm running it on top of my OS and then the virtual machines are run out of the VirtualBox Manager.  So pretty simple to do and pretty easy to set up.  However, I also understand what you are saying about the performance hit.  So I do want to go with the type 1 set-up you show in your reply.  Even if it is harder to set-up.

It is, but once is set, it will give you a nice experience with virtualization.

 

1 hour ago, The Print Craftsman said:

Now, regarding CPU usage.  I am going to go ahead and say that the usage will be in bursts.  I am not 100% positive but based on my experiences so far with running these nodes using my VPS provider... they do not run wide open constantly.

If you have one running, you can get that data either by manually monitoring from cli with top or htop (the later is more visual), or by getting a monitoring solution, i like the free plan in new relic one, just install the infrastructure agent in your VPS, collect that data and you can analyze it later.

 

1 hour ago, The Print Craftsman said:

I'm going to monkey around with this Oracle VirtualBox Manager I downloaded.  Now I have installed it on my Windows computer.  How would I go about installing it directly onto the hardware?  Is there a version of it that installs like an OS?
 

Proxmox is the way to go for free virtualization software as Filip98 said, its not licensed, have a decent community, docs an tutorials you can use. and if it does not convince you, you can always swtich to another solution without losing anything but time