+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 121
Thin Client and Virtual Machines Thread, Whether to virtualise our main servers in Technical; Originally Posted by burgemaster Why does hyper-v require a physical DC please!! We have DC1 and DC2 both virtualized on ...
  1. #106

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by burgemaster View Post
    Why does hyper-v require a physical DC please!! We have DC1 and DC2 both virtualized on different 2012 hosts.

    No problems in 2 years. Or have I been dodging the bullet!!!!!!
    Microsoft have a knowledgebase article on virtualised DCs - Things to consider when you host Active Directory domain controllers in virtual hosting environments

    One of the things to remember is that if your Hyper-V hosts are members of the domain (which, if you want to use any of the clustered failover stuff they need to be I believe), you then have a chicken and egg problem - if your entire cluster is down, and you turn it back on, your host nodes now won't have a DC to work with, as they are guests on top of the host and aren't live. If you use things like clustered storage volumes then you won't be able to boot up your VMs either, as your host won't have access to a DC to authenticate access to the CSV.

    So, some potentially major problems.

  2. Thanks to localzuk from:

    Jollity (27th February 2014)

  3. #107

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,747
    Thank Post
    1,275
    Thanked 1,651 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    506
    At the risk of having eggs thrown at me, its not quite true that you *must* always have a physical DC with Hyper-V, it depends on your setup. Our main host is not part of a failover cluster, no SAN, everything is on local storage, there are nothing that depends on a functioning domain to start. You start the host and the DCs start up. Yes there might be a short period where there is no domain but its only the time to restart the main host or start up the replicated VMs on the backup host. It isn't worth us purchasing and maintaining a physical DC just for that.

    Just to address the failover cluster question as well. Advice given out by Veeam here:
    From Virtualizing a Domain Controller or not? - Spiceworks
    you can create a failover cluster and keep one DC as not highly available and on the local storage. That takes out the risk when everything goes down at once

  4. #108

    seawolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    969
    Thank Post
    12
    Thanked 283 Times in 217 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    At the risk of having eggs thrown at me, its not quite true that you *must* always have a physical DC with Hyper-V, it depends on your setup. Our main host is not part of a failover cluster, no SAN, everything is on local storage, there are nothing that depends on a functioning domain to start. You start the host and the DCs start up. Yes there might be a short period where there is no domain but its only the time to restart the main host or start up the replicated VMs on the backup host. It isn't worth us purchasing and maintaining a physical DC just for that.

    Just to address the failover cluster question as well. Advice given out by Veeam here:

    I'm not throwing eggs at you, but what if there is an extended power outage and then a failure on startup of the host for the DC that is on local storage? That may seem somewhat unlikely, but rapid power off events are one of the most likely things to cause hardware failures.

    Also, wouldn't this setup require at least three hosts if one host is not part of a failover cluster? Two hosts is more common in my experience, at least in school environments.

  5. #109

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    817
    Thank Post
    99
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    I believe we are in the same situation as sparkeh.

    We have multiple hosts (four) that are not part of a cluster. We have all the VMs hosted locally on the hosts as we don't have a SAN. I don't think we can get caught in the chicken/egg trap. IF ever one of the hosts was to go down the other would pick up the authentications. If both hosts that were hosting each DCs we to go down we could them bring it back on one of the other remaining two.

    I know it is not the idea setup. But we cant afford a SAN, and we are using our underpowered Dell Poweredge rack servers.

    localzuk - The hosts are domain members, but in that situation of double host failure wouldn't we be able to login locally and start the VMs??

    I could easily rebuild DC3 onto a physical server as we have the capacity. What do you think please?
    Last edited by burgemaster; 27th February 2014 at 10:12 AM.

  6. #110

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,747
    Thank Post
    1,275
    Thanked 1,651 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by seawolf View Post
    I'm not throwing eggs at you, but what if there is an extended power outage and then a failure on startup of the host for the DC that is on local storage? That may seem somewhat unlikely, but rapid power off events are one of the most likely things to cause hardware failures.
    Ok fair point, but this isn't just restricted to VMs, what would happen if your physical DC suffered the same fate? Also it would probably be easier to recover from this in a virtualised environment (given a good backup strategy).
    Quote Originally Posted by seawolf View Post
    Also, wouldn't this setup require at least three hosts if one host is not part of a failover cluster? Two hosts is more common in my experience, at least in school environments.
    Don't think so, as far as I am aware you can run a standalone VM separate from the cluster on the cluster node. Just run up your VM, use local storage, but don't make it highly available and it operates as a standalone VM. In the event of problems you can startup your standalone DC then bring up your cluster. At least that is what I have read about what other people have done but can't claim personal experience of doing it.

  7. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    Jollity (27th February 2014)

  8. #111

    seawolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    969
    Thank Post
    12
    Thanked 283 Times in 217 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    Ok fair point, but this isn't just restricted to VMs, what would happen if your physical DC suffered the same fate? Also it would probably be easier to recover from this in a virtualised environment (given a good backup strategy).
    Yes, it certainly could. But, the added complexity of a virtual environment makes it more likely there. The more moving parts, the more there is to break.

    Don't think so, as far as I am aware you can run a standalone VM separate from the cluster on the cluster node. Just run up your VM, use local storage, but don't make it highly available and it operates as a standalone VM. In the event of problems you can startup your standalone DC then bring up your cluster. At least that is what I have read about what other people have done but can't claim personal experience of doing it.
    Ah, I see what you are doing. Just make sure you don't set this server to be your primary authentication server or DNS server in any systems where you have to set primary and secondary LDAP or DNS (external systems, firewall/VPN, DHCP server, web filter, etc). Because if that server goes down (and it's more likely it could as it's not highly available) then you will encounter problems. For this same reason, you shouldn't make the physical DC that is your "safety net" in a virtualised environment your primary LDAP/DNS either.

    Learned that lesson the hard way,

  9. Thanks to seawolf from:

    sparkeh (27th February 2014)

  10. #112

    seawolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    969
    Thank Post
    12
    Thanked 283 Times in 217 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by burgema ster View Post
    I believe we are in the same situation as sparkeh.

    We have multiple hosts (four) that are not part of a cluster. We have all the VMs hosted locally on the hosts as we don't have a SAN. I don't think we can get caught in the chicken/egg trap. IF ever one of the hosts was to go down the other would pick up the authentications. If both hosts that were hosting each DCs we to go down we could them bring it back on one of the other remaining two.

    I know it is not the idea setup. But we cant afford a SAN, and we are using our underpowered Dell Poweredge rack servers.

    localzuk - The hosts are domain members, but in that situation of double host failure wouldn't we be able to login locally and start the VMs??

    I could easily rebuild DC3 onto a physical server as we have the capacity. What do you think please?
    You have an unusual virtualisation setup with 4 hosts all using local storage and none of them in a cluster. Your problem won't be in not having a physical DC. It will come about from the lack of HA and losing VM servers when a host goes down.

    Hopefully you have a good backup strategy?

  11. #113
    ChrisH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Lancs
    Posts
    5,002
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 282 Times in 260 Posts
    Rep Power
    108
    The newer version of Clustering services is supposed to start without AD if necessary; although I haven't tested that scenario.

  12. #114

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,665
    Thank Post
    850
    Thanked 893 Times in 738 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by seawolf View Post
    You have an unusual virtualisation setup with 4 hosts all using local storage and none of them in a cluster. Your problem won't be in not having a physical DC. It will come about from the lack of HA and losing VM servers when a host goes down.
    Isn't Hyper-V Replica designed just for this exact scenario? Automatically updating copies of VM images between non clustered hosts to provide HA on host failure?

  13. #115

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    217
    Thank Post
    260
    Thanked 23 Times in 19 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    I had also been interested in the reasons for needing a physical DC.

    Do you think it is necessary to keep the master roles (schema master, PDC emulator etc) on the physical DC or is it just a question of having a DC and DNS server so the main virtualised ones can get going? Edit: I had missed the last page. If I read correct, Seawolf is saying it is better to have the primary AD server on the virtual server for availability reasons.

    I was thinking that our VM hosts would just not be kept on the domain to reduce the risk of dependency loops. I want to use one of the old servers as a physical DC, but I do not think it will last more than a couple more years, but we can probably find something to use after that.
    Last edited by Jollity; 27th February 2014 at 12:42 PM.

  14. #116

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,747
    Thank Post
    1,275
    Thanked 1,651 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Jollity View Post
    I had also been interested in the reasons for needing a physical DC.

    Do you think it is necessary to keep the master roles (schema master, PDC emulator etc) on the physical DC or is it just a question of having a DC and DNS server so the main virtualised ones can get going? Edit: I had missed the last page. If I read correct, Seawolf is saying it is better to have the primary AD server on the virtual server for availability reasons.

    I was thinking that our VM hosts would just not be kept on the domain to reduce the risk of dependency loops. I want to use one of the old servers as a physical DC, but I do not think it will last more than a couple more years, but we can probably find something to use after that.
    If you are building a failover cluster then you are making your VM DCs 'highly available' so you should be putting your critical services on these, as @seawolf has said the physical DC is a safety net and more likely to fail.

  15. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    Jollity (27th February 2014)

  16. #117

    seawolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    969
    Thank Post
    12
    Thanked 283 Times in 217 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Isn't Hyper-V Replica designed just for this exact scenario? Automatically updating copies of VM images between non clustered hosts to provide HA on host failure?
    I don't believe MS intended the Hyper-V Replica feature to be used in this configuration. It would make more sense if two of the Hyper-V hosts were setup in a Primary failover cluster (primary site) with two additional Hyper-V hosts in a separate backup failover cluster (secondary site) and replication occurred between the hosts at the primary site and the hosts at the secondary site.

    In this situation though, you would have 4 completely independent Hyper-V hosts replicating to three other Hyper-V hosts. If a VM goes down - which replica takes over?

    EDIT: Also, please don't think that Hyper-V Replication is designed for HA - it is not. You will have to manually spin up the replica VM on the secondary host, and you will likely have some data loss. See Microsoft Tech Note regarding unscheduled outages and Hyper-V replicas:

    Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BCDR)

    In a BC scenario and a planned failover event of a primary VM, Hyper-V Replica will first copy any un-replicated changes to the replica VM, such that the event produces no loss of data. Once the planned failover is completed, the replica VM will then become the primary VM and carry the workload, while a reverse replication is automatically set. In a DR scenario, i.e. an unplanned outage of a primary VM, an operator will need to manually bring up the replicated VM with an expectation of some data loss, since changes of the primary VM not yet replicated to the replicated VM have now been lost along with the unplanned outage.

    - See more at: Hyper-V Replica Explained, Windows Server 2012 Style - Yung Chou on Hybrid Cloud - Site Home - TechNet Blogs
    Last edited by seawolf; 27th February 2014 at 09:56 PM.

  17. #118
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,765
    Thank Post
    898
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    87
    Yeh thats exactly why I didn't go with the replica system and have mine designed for manual failover on local storage.

  18. #119

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,665
    Thank Post
    850
    Thanked 893 Times in 738 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    328
    @zag, do you not have the same core issue as Replica though? As in you're only as good as the time interval from the last clone/backup? I think it was mentioned a few posts back, full HA requires SCVVM and SCOM and some form of shared storage.

  19. #120
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,765
    Thank Post
    898
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    87
    Yeh, definitely only as good as your last backup.

    Veeam all the way for that

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11th March 2011, 11:29 AM
  2. Time to replace our old server, need advice
    By RallyTech in forum Hardware
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 29th June 2010, 10:49 PM
  3. Question Marks When moving Edugeek Joomla to the main server
    By FN-GM in forum EduGeek Joomla 1.0 Package
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3rd July 2008, 09:23 PM
  4. Best way / method to sync time between servers.
    By mac_shinobi in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 27th September 2005, 01:40 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •