I've got a 2+q node PVE cluster, and I'm trying to get setup with shared storage hosted on the two main nodes - I'm working through SW vSAN Free now, since I thought it would be a good way forward. However, I seem to not be able to proceed with the setup of an HA LUN, no matter what I do, possibly due to mismatched hardware between the nodes.
The first node (prox1) boots and holds the CVM image on an NVMe drive, then also has: 2x 1.92TB SSDs and 2x 14TB HDDs, all off the "FCH SATA Controller" which has been passed-through to the CVM through PCIe passthrough. The second node (prox2) boots and holds the CVM image on an NVMe drive, then also has 2x 1.6TB NVMe SSDs, and 2x 8TB HDDs (1 SAS, the other SATA), with the SAS controller and the latter two NVMe drives passed through. My intention out of this setup is to have two shared volumes at the end - one that's 1.6TB and lives on the 4 SSDs, and one that's 8TB and lives on the 4 HDDs, with full HA support (the end result will likely look slightly different in practice, but that's the core functionality I'm after to start off).
Following the configuration guide, I start deviating as soon as we get to "Create Storage Pools" - if I select both nodes, it will not let me select drives on both nodes, with the tooltip "This disk has a different media or bus type, size or is attached to a different storage controller". I'm able to work around that by adding the pools on each node separately, but we run into a similar issue creating Volumes - they must be done separately. When I go to create a LUN, even with exactly identical Volume configurations (including exactly the same size, etc.), trying to add both nodes always shows "Selected appliances have no compatible volumes".
So, first off, I thought you could do this with this product - is there just some step I'm missing to create mismatched 2-way HA setups?
Assuming that's not possible, I'm imagining a solution where I do disk pass-through instead of PCIe pass-through, setting the sizes the same (so both CVMs would see identical disks, on matched virtio SCSI interfaces) - this has a few downsides that I see, but otherwise is this possible? Would this completely tank performance? Am I better off just trying to find a solution that better fits my needs?
The Latest Gartner® Magic Quadrant™Hyperconverged Infrastructure Software