+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Thin Client and Virtual Machines Thread, Virtualisation in Technical; Hey Guys, Just wondered if anyone has virtual servers in there schools? Thinking about making the plunge to save energy.Can ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    35
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Virtualisation

    Hey Guys,
    Just wondered if anyone has virtual servers in there schools?
    Thinking about making the plunge to save energy.Can any of you give me some numbers? on savings?
    Thant you have experienced for yourselves.
    Thank you.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    65
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 14 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    Don't have any solid figures.

    But we went from 12 physical servers to 3 virtual physical servers hosting at the last count 23 servers :-).

    All the little programs we have SIMs cashless catering etc all now have there own servers.

    Air on now does not have to work so hard and is turned up slightly as well.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Watford
    Posts
    906
    Thank Post
    397
    Thanked 122 Times in 80 Posts
    Rep Power
    79
    We have went from 12 physicals>LTO3 Tape to 12 virtuals>2 Host boxes>16tb SAN>16tb Diskbox>LTO 5 Tape. So we have gone from around a £54k replacement cycle over 5 years to around £35k plus reduced running and cooling costs.

  4. Thanks to andyturpie from:

    mikeyd101 (28th April 2014)

  5. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northants
    Posts
    146
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
    Rep Power
    13
    Very difficult to quantify as i have been requesting something to monitor the server room power draw for some time. We virtualised main systems 4 years ago, and now are running 78VM's on 3 hosts plus about 10/12 Physical Servers. I think that we would have to be running maybe 50 physical servers if we hadn't virtualised. I have been virtualising a few more recently as the hardware became end of life, and alongisde moving some kit to a second server room for DR purposes i am going to be able to take out a whole 42 rack. and still have space in the other racks. (a lot of rack space is taken up with VDI and storage systems)

    The energy saving benefits are high, but the true benefit is in administration and availability. Using VM's allows us to have total role seperation so if a VM goes pearshaped it only affects one role, Hosts can be maintained without downtime etc. And new servers/roles can be deployed in minutes not days.

  6. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    hull
    Posts
    50
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    We currently run 2 Hosts with a 16TB SAN and D2D2T which run our 6(maybe 8) main virtual servers. We also used some old physical servers to make a couple of extra hosts - one to run some of our ancillary systems (ClickView, Spiceworks etc...) and another as a kind of development box.

    There are a number of advantages for going virtual - the mains being power, space and hardware savings as well as the manageability, administration and availability during and after major issues.

  7. #6
    robjduk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    521
    Thank Post
    25
    Thanked 76 Times in 59 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    We went from about 15 physical down to 4 virtual about 3 years ago and not a moment has gone by when I haven't thought its the best thing we have ever done. Everything just sped up overnight using VMWare as the base software and managing it couldn't be easier. Even to this day I don't get how it works so much better on a fifth of the hardware.

  8. #7
    ozydave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    270
    Thank Post
    89
    Thanked 38 Times in 26 Posts
    Rep Power
    33

    Virtualisation

    How much RAM do you have in your hosts ?
    Currently got 32 in my 3 hosts want to up it 90 odd. Just want some comparisons when management question it.

    As others have said going virtual is the best thing I have ever done in terms of cost
    Last edited by ozydave; 25th April 2014 at 07:17 AM.

  9. #8
    xenonive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colchester
    Posts
    223
    Thank Post
    37
    Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    I've got 4 host , 2x dual CPU and 2x single CPU , dual CPU hosts have 128GB RAM , single CPU host have 64GB RAM . 20 virtual machines running with capacity for any host to fail and machines to be started on another host . Next plans are to put 10gig network cards in each host and have 10gig storage network backbone

  10. #9

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,272
    Thank Post
    939
    Thanked 1,575 Times in 1,074 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    702
    I don't know about energy savings, but in terms of reliability, easy provisioning of new servers, backing up & disaster recovery and space reclaimed in my server room (it was all fat towers before, in a single rack now, more or less) it's been superb. Thoroughly recommended.

    We went Hyper-V in a failover cluster with a SAN; there are different options now with Hyper-V (and I think VMWare have more sensible pricing these days) but there's plenty of people around here that have gone Hyper-V or VMWare with great success, and a lot of people doing funky things with storage.

  11. #10
    RobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    121
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    We have 3 physical ESX hosts (196GB RAM each) that host around 40 servers. Then a physical DC and a physical Backup server, all runs pretty smoothly.

  12. #11

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    6,383
    Thank Post
    613
    Thanked 1,135 Times in 869 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    497
    We run 3 ESX hosts, 72GB, 48GB and 24GB hosting about a dozen servers. Best thing we ever did. All our DCs etc are all virtual, backup & restore is made so easy should we need to and resiliency is great. Not sure on power savings, that wasn't really high on the list of reasons to do it

  13. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hey hey hey, stay outta my shed. STAY OUT OF MY SHED.
    Posts
    1,099
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 221 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    We have 8 virtual hosts with about 60-odd virtual servers on them. I can't imagine not virtualising a large part of the server workload these days.

    Untitled.png

    They're fairly meaty servers, but then we're virtualising SQL servers, and Exchange servers that support 1000s of mailboxes.

  14. #13

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,381
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 2,615 Times in 2,021 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    891
    We went from around 12 servers down to 5 (4 for the virtualisation, 2 as Hyper-V nodes, 2 as storage using SMB3.0 shares, and 1 server for a system that requires a physical device connection which can't be virtualised).

    So, potentially that's gone from 8.4kW max draw down to 3.7kW.

    Actual power usage is more difficult to calculate though, as the old servers were not all taxed 100% all the time, and neither are the new ones.

    In terms of spec, we have each of the nodes loaded with 96GB RAM. However, I have come to a point where that isn't really enough. I would be quite happy to double that in them.

  15. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    870
    Thank Post
    59
    Thanked 133 Times in 111 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    This looks like it might help: Cost comparison toolkit: Calculating server power usage - Tech Pro Research

    Put simply you're likely to save power, but it depends upon how many servers you are P2V-ing.

    SANs eat a fair amount of power, so that may negate the power saving you see by reducing the number of physical servers, especially if you're going to have additional networking kit to support SAN traffic.

    If power-saving is the real driver behind this then it'd be worth considering VMware V-SAN.

  16. #15

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    6,383
    Thank Post
    613
    Thanked 1,135 Times in 869 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post

    They're fairly meaty servers, but then we're virtualising SQL servers, and Exchange servers that support 1000s of mailboxes.
    Always makes me giggle to remember our mail server with 2000 mailboxes runs on 4GB of RAM and barely bats an eyelid under load - even when someone gets phished and their account sends out 10k+ emails in a matter of hours



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Virtualisation - where to start?
    By speckytecky in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 7th August 2009, 04:58 AM
  2. Virtualisation Servers
    By Gatt in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 27th March 2008, 12:32 PM
  3. Virtualisation Kit - your recommendation.
    By Paid_Peanuts in forum Hardware
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 4th March 2008, 06:26 PM
  4. virtualisation ?
    By mac_shinobi in forum Mac
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6th February 2008, 03:49 PM
  5. Disaster recovery with virtualisation
    By sidewinder in forum Windows
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30th April 2007, 02:28 PM

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
  •