Trent Peters 
United States
Member since
4/16/2006
Platinum Membership
Posts: 116
 |
| 5/07/2008 04:21 AM |
|
Very nice thread you linked, thanks Boon. Thanks for the advice with I/O, we normally put in 10K SAS, raid 5 for clients. [but my new test box (ML350 2xQuad 10GB RAM, yea it rocks) has RAID1 for the sys and RAID10 for the data]. We'll probably just go with 15K SAS in a similar setup, but disk cost with RAID10 is high, and those 146GB 15K SAS drives aren't cheap. I'm pretty unfamiliar with SAN solutions, but will probably consider going that route as well, considering we’re talking about consolidating 10 servers to 3 (2 VMs, 1 DB).
I've tested Hyper-V with XP SP3, Win2K3 R2, 2008, and I'm loading SBS now. I'm amazed at how little the process utilization is. The Snapshot features are just too cool. 3 seconds to load a machine back to it's previous state or just ahead? Now that is business continuity.
I really think virtualization is going to be the next level in my MSP business. I'm starting to think with Hyper-V already built in to 2008, VMWare is going to be a losing horse. Any rumors on when Hyper-V is going to go RTM? I can't implement in production with good conscious while it's beta.
M&M should consider a virtualization forum, with SBS 2008 Premium including a second copy of 2008 (hopefully with Hyper-V), I can only imagine more and more SBS’rs will be exploring virtualization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennes Meeusen
The Netherlands
Member since
4/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 232
|
| 5/07/2008 11:54 AM |
|
Hyper-V is supposed to RTM this August. Another nice add-on also about to be released would be SC Virtual Machine Manager 2008 Workgroup Edition, the tool to manager Hyper-V VM's and their hosts. The Workgorup version is limited to 5 hosts (and unlimited VM's) and will cost around EUR 400 so that would be a perfect fit for the SMB and a very big competitor to VMware's ESX Foundation + VirtualCenter product for about a quarter of the price.
Regarding your statement about VMware losing it's share, well i think they'll still be able to rule the Enterprise sector for another couple of years, based on their current merit and options that Hyper-V just can't compete to yet.
The SMB sector, that's where Hyper-V is going to be *the* killer app starting the second half of 2008 when it's publicly available and especially when SBS 2008 comes out (Would be awesome if we could be able to add/hack the Hyper-V role to SBS 2008!!).
Dennes
|
|
127.0.0.1 is where the heart is.. |
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 548
|
| 5/08/2008 11:04 PM |
|
| Instead of using windows to virtualize windows and therefore complicating backups i'm going to look at using Linux as the host and either xen or vmware to virtualize any windows servers. Installing a base linux machine is easily done in under an hour from scratch(much faster if you have a DR setup) and then all i have to do is backup the Linux system state and the vm file..backups are now a breeze. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Mick Malloy
Australia
Member since
4/6/2007
Microsoft MVP
Posts: 286
|
| 5/09/2008 04:54 AM |
|
Though details need to be finalised I will, so far, throw 2008Core+Hyper-V rebuild time up against any *nix. I doubt it would beat the (basically) cut down *nix shells used by the higher end virtualisation products restore time but I wouldn't expect a lot in it.
NOTE: I am solely talking about the rebuild of our 'virtualisation platform', data transfer (our VM images) is going to be similar under any platform.
As Windows moves to 'block based' (see Windows Home Server, or DPM) rather than file based backup, and considering that Windows will support (through VSS) backup of live running VM's, I don't see much of an issue on this aspect. (not all the pieces of the puzzle may be available yet, granted) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennes Meeusen
The Netherlands
Member since
4/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 232
|
| 5/09/2008 10:06 AM |
|
Posted By william warren on 5/08/2008 11:04 PM
Instead of using windows to virtualize windows and therefore complicating backups i'm going to look at using Linux as the host and either xen or vmware to virtualize any windows servers. Installing a base linux machine is easily done in under an hour from scratch(much faster if you have a DR setup) and then all i have to do is backup the Linux system state and the vm file..backups are now a breeze.
@William
Why would Windows increase the difficulty of backing up VM's? I really don't see that. If you and/or your consultants are all comfortable with using and administering Linux, then be my guest. If they're not, however, then you're going to get yourself and your clients into a sure fire load of trouble.
The only thing about Hyper-V still bothering me is that it will probably require (being a Windows server) lots of patches and inevitably lots of reboots, especially since it's a whole new product. In a worse case scenario, this would imply that you'd have to reboot your server and thus all the VM's running inside it just about every patch tuesday. If you're used to VMware ESX, you're probably in for a whole new experience :-)
Dennes
|
|
127.0.0.1 is where the heart is.. |
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 548
|
| 5/09/2008 01:21 PM |
|
Nice thing about using Xen is the Linux host only has to be rebooted for kernel updates and those are not out nearly as often as patches for windows that require reboots. Also the Linux host software is totally free. I think(i could be wrong here) for the hyper-v solution you have to buy a windows license for 2k8 plus 29 bucks for hyper-v plus the cost of additional licenses for the windows vm's. So you are having to maintain two windows installations minimum jsut to run one VM with the associated costs of two windows installations.
@Mick: Considering the complexities of backing up most windows systems(registries, the DRM(that's what activation really is), Licensing overhead which is substantial..among others That's why VMware on the high end and Xen and vmware are doing so well everywhere else. Hyper-v is a great idea from MS form those who are MS pure houses only but with the costs involved even MS pure houses should look at either xen or vmware. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Mick Malloy
Australia
Member since
4/6/2007
Microsoft MVP
Posts: 286
|
| 6/14/2008 11:26 PM |
|
Hi William, haven't been here for a while but thought I better 'check in'. Sounds like you may not know about MS '1+1' rights in relation to virtualisation.
'1+1' is the legal right to run Server Core + Hyper-V on the host (parent partition) and a fully installed instance of Server 2008 as guest (child partition), from one license. There is a restriction that the host only perform virtualisation, so this also simplifies the backup (in fact, due to the minimal config I probably wouldn't bother backing up the host, should it fail recreation is easier than restore). Backup of the children should happen, of course.
There are similar virtualisation rights to 2003 Enterprise (4 instances, any server OS) and 2003 DataCenter (unlimited instances, any server OS), so the value equation can actually be better in a pure MS house :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 548
|
| 6/15/2008 02:39 AM |
|
that applies for enterprise editions..not necessarily the standard edition.. You still have to buy 2k8 as the host and then purchase sbs2k8 on top of that. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Dan Poole
Australia
Member since
5/8/2008
Registered Users
Posts: 19
|
| 6/24/2008 07:23 AM |
|
With SBS2008 now 64bit and able to use 32GB of RAM Vitualization seems a good option to cut machine costs.
I'm considering a SBS2008 premium, with the hardware box 2008 server core with SBS as a VM, and then usingusing the 2nd 2008 licence for a 2nd TS VM. SQL would be installed on the SBS VM.
or perhaps SBS2008 as the hardware OS with SQL installed on it, a VM running off this box for TS. (leaning more this route as unsure how if SBS will have the same 'core' licencing allowance as 2008 Server does??)
The Box would be quite substantial, dual Quad 3Ghz Xeons, a Raid 1 for the SBS OS install on 2 x 146 GB SAS 15k's, then a Raid10 array of 6 300GB 15k SAS's for the VM TS, SQL & Exchange.
Ram Would be something like 16-20GB total, split probably 50/50.
The above from what I understand requires only the user CAL licencing for the SBS & SBS Premium users and CAL Licencing for TS users. I can't see any licencing restrictions stopping SQL being installed, and the use of the 2nd 2008 Server as a TS shouldn't be an issue.
Mind you the above serves 50 users total, 20 desktop, 30 TS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timothy Morris
United Kingdom
Member since
8/22/2006
Registered Users
Posts: 12
|
| 7/19/2008 06:09 PM |
|
I had a 3 month silver subscription as a trial but didn't use it much, however I'm about to put together a lab machine running SBS2008 RC0, and virtualisation appeals to me, so I think I'm going yo have to subscribe again.. I might actually go with two physical servers and relegate the current 2003 SBS box to become a backup server. I use Exchange@PAM together with BackupExec to keep a continuous backup of Exchange, but I can't implement the full CPS option in Backup Exec as I currently only have one physical server. My user base is small - 5 directly connected domain members and three who access Exchange via RPC-HTTP but aren't domain workstations. The SBS box also functions as a streaming server for Logitech Squeezeboxes (It is installed in a SoHo environment). Even though the server software has recently undergone a major update to support the new Duo (and improve it generally) it has quite a small footprint - it can run on a NAS box if reuired. It does require a reboot whenever updated (I tend to update to the latest public beta once a week), and splitting that out into a seperate server would be qn advantage - it can comfortably run on XP. It might be easier to just run one box with say a quad core an 8 or perhaps 16 Gb of RAM. Is it possible (or desireable) to run the SBS application server on the same Virtual server
Is there a web-site or blog that discusses various virtualisation options?
I'm really interested in the idea of Virtualisation particularly Hyper-V, I know my hardware has the required features to run it.
I'm crying out for a new box as my current mainboard only supprts 3 gig of RAM and since SP1 and R2 together with the third party software I use (BackupExec, Trend Micro Worry Free, Squeezecentre (only takes up 50 Meg) plus 4 instances of SQL) mean that I'm making more use of the page file than I'd like. I know how much faster machines run if everything can be kept in RAM - it's really obvious when you run Vista on a 1Gb box compared with one with 2Gb.
I'm afraid it's a bit of a rambling post, but I've got lots to think about and would love to be in a position to migraate my current domain as soon as SBS2008 goes to RTM.
Tim |
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Ungerer
Germany
Member since
6/11/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 61
|
| 9/27/2008 09:37 AM |
|
Hi ,
I have some applications running, which need Windows XP SP 2 as operating system. I use some seperate XP virtual machines under Windows 2008 Standard Hyper V. This is a nice usage of the old XP Licences left over from Upgrading to Vista. ( a time consuming experience, getting better every month )
The 4 XPs run for 3 weeks now without any problems.
There is only one problem in installing those machines, the file in which those machines run, wants full rights for all users. After that everything runs as promised, including the integration in the SBS 2003 envirement. Once MS fixes this rights problem, experienced by other people in the internet, this is a very nice solution for 500 € + 64 bit hardware.
I use an abit P35 Motherboard, 6 Gig Ram, Dual Core processor, areca Raidcontroller with 3 x 750 Gig Samsung disks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Malloy
Australia
Member since
4/6/2007
Microsoft MVP
Posts: 286
|
| 9/28/2008 01:21 AM |
|
ummm, Peter,
if you used those XP licenses as the 'base' for Vista Upgrade media you _cannot_ now redploy them. Your Vista licenses are a combination of the base XP lic and the Vista Upgrade lic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Malloy
Australia
Member since
4/6/2007
Microsoft MVP
Posts: 286
|
| 9/28/2008 01:35 AM |
|
BTW William, 2008 Server Standard has 1+1 rights. Enterprise has 1+4 and Datacenter has 1+gazillion(as many as will fit on the box).
However, the real SBS 2008 virtualisation scenarios and their support have now been published. http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/2008/09/15/sbs-2008-and-virtualization.aspx
Also, something I was not aware of until recently enters this mix. MS will soon make available for FREE download 'Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V', _just_ the Hyper-V stuff. As I understand it this will be a base windows install with only those components necessary for the creation, management, and support of Hyper-V. When this becomes available, WHO cares about 1+1? We will have our 'parent' regardless of any 'child' licensing. (the 1+4 or 1+many will still benefit those who purchase Enterprise or DataCenter)
|
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 548
|
| 9/29/2008 11:32 PM |
|
unfortunately sbs standard is not supported as the VM host under hyper v... |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Peter Ungerer
Germany
Member since
6/11/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 61
|
| 9/30/2008 09:31 PM |
|
Hi Mick,
these XP Licences are full licences, so are the Vistas. I hate being a disk jockey. 
My SBS 2003 runs on a HP G5 platform and I do not run anything on it exept Exchange, SQL, Panda Enterprise Virus Scan, Syncsort Backup Express and some directories of general use in the company. It runs without any problems and takes very little time to maintain it. So I do not want any thing to disturb the heavenly peace since the switch to HP.
The Hyper V is now the system to test new things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Ungerer
Germany
Member since
6/11/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 61
|
| 9/30/2008 09:34 PM |
|
| The Hyper V is now the system to test new things, on a second Hardware. The SBS will not be touched.
|
|
|
|
|
|