Re: Bad info on 8 Node
@John from Nutanix Here.
So, no sweet spot, but a reference to the nutanixbible site (which is an interesting read). The 5 node minimum is real - to get acceptable levels of resilience of the data (inc. metadata) in the cluster, even says so on the above web site.
Then you go and say "We have options for 1 and 2 node clusters if that better fits.". A 1 node system isn't a cluster and it offers no resilience at all, so not enterprise ready,
Secondly 2 nodes is below the RF3 you talk about in the nutanixbible web site.
Then you go on to imply that cluster size is a function of workload. Well, if it scales properly, then you should be able to scale out linearly, unless there is some bottleneck that prevents this - otherwise why wouldn't customers do this in all cases ?.
I challenge your "no 8 node limit" statement. I've had several designs come across my desk whilst at different customer sites and they never go above 8 nodes. When I ask what happens next when we expand - its always a new cluster, now why would that be ?
Could it be that the age old mantra that the interconnect traffic increases as the node count goes up, so the bang for your buck decreases as you scale out making it less and less viable. Is this also the reason why you have to have storage heavy nodes to offset the disk performance issues. How many of those do we need for performance AND resilience for RF5 ???
You also say about broad hardware compatibility, but again, first hand experience, incompatible hardware derailed one site build as some standard built-in mainstream vendor card wasn't compatible with the software and it refused to install with a cryptic error message.
So, my position on hyper converged hardware - plenty of hype all round.