Thin Client and Virtual Machines Thread, Setting up hyper-v on server 2008 R2 in Technical; This thread follows on from this post http://www.edugeek.net/forums/window...tml#post693253 which also followed on from another post.
Ok based on the link ...
21st June 2011, 11:37 AM #1
Setting up hyper-v on server 2008 R2
This thread follows on from this post Best 2008R2 Backup software to do full emergency restore which also followed on from another post.
Ok based on the link above I am going to setup hyper-v I have used VMware before but never hyper-v.
So I install server 2008R2, add updates, then add hyper-v, then install 2008R2 as a VM and set as DC, then add other servers as VM's but what do I do with the original underlying 2008R2 server in terms of joining the network etc. Do I simply leave it of the domain? If the hardware gets turned off and on AD will not be running for the original underlying 2008R2 server to log onto.
What do you all do?
21st June 2011, 11:47 AM #2
i leave my hyper v base pcs wherever possible as stand-alone (but thats usually as i have 1 server and either its running hypervised dc's or its a dc running hypervised print server insert name of non x64 server bits so abacus etc) that way its dependant on nothing else and in worst case scenario as long as you know local admin lack of network is no issue. If you have multiple physical boxes and dcs you could domain it but im not sure i see much point other than standardised settings via gpo but again not really relevant i dont think nd the minor convinience of having the hyper v manager console on a n other pc with a single login
21st June 2011, 12:06 PM #3
In your scenario leave the Hyper-V host as a stand alone server.
In most cases we always have a dedicated physical DC which hosts AD/DNS/DHCP and thats all, in which case then there is no real problem in having your Hyper-V hosts as domain members.
21st June 2011, 12:11 PM #4
- Rep Power
It depends if you are planning to cluster your Hyper-V servers or not. If not, then I can't think of any important reason why it would need to be a domain member. If you are clustering, using multiple physical hyper-v servers, then they will need to be domain members. You can't cluster them if they're not. In which case, you would need at least one physical domain controller. We haven't got as far as virtualising our DCs yet, but what we'll probably do is to just have a pair of low-spec, lower-power physical servers set up as DCs and then virtualise everything else. See what other replies you get. There might be different (or better!) ways of doing it.
21st June 2011, 12:20 PM #5
This is what I have at the moment but following advice in thread at the top of this post was advised to move my single server setup into a VM as its easier to backup. do you advise against this.
In most cases we always have a dedicated physical DC which hosts AD/DNS/DHCP and thats all
Originally I needed to find a new backup solution for all my single server schools, something that can restore everything like AD, DNS, SQL etc easily and fast and was advised to virtualize the server.
I do seem to be going round and rouind.
22nd June 2011, 09:41 AM #6
If installing server 2008R2 as vm - On the network adapter page should I select dynamic, static or spoofing for the mac?
22nd June 2011, 09:46 AM #7
id say static
also looks liek hyper v dosent like differing sp levels i upgraded 1 vm server to sp1 a while back did the base yesterday now the other is being odd with networking (all 2008r2 enterprise currently sp1ing the misbehaving one wouldnt you know it its sims/admin server that id decided to leave alone)
22nd June 2011, 10:04 AM #8
And thats where it's all gone wrong isnt it!
You have a Single Server Solution, Im not saying thats good or bad it's a fact and if thats all you need, why Virtualise at all! You have just overcomplicated a simple solution.
The problem is nowadays getting everything to co-exist on a single server isnt easy, and virtualisation offers any easy route out to application isolation.
If you have 12 servers and your spinning plates to keep things running, powered and cooled than Virtualisation is common sense, but in your single server world, KISS.
I have dozens of Single SBS Servers with a USB Drive attached running a 5 day Rotational Backup never needed to do any more than recover the odd file deleted by somebody stupid.
For the more mission critical Single Servers I use Symantec BESR as this allows more complex schedules and even supports Off-Site FTP backups.
If you add it to the cost of the server it is less than £200 OEM or just license it that way you will always have the latest version.
Virtualisation is not the answer to everything!
22nd June 2011, 11:21 AM #9
m25man - I have always agreed with your point of view in the past, as all my schools are running single server setups (no VM's) but having seen how easy hyper-v is to setup and use under 2008R2 I am starting to change my mindset. In the past setting up and running a VM using Microsoft virtual products has been a pain to run and setup, but this appears to have changed with 2008.
If my one and only issue/question so far is 'how should the nic be setup' thats not bad considering I have more problems getting printers working in mixed 32bit / 64bit setup.
This is an option I will not be taking lightly. In fact it's all I can think about at the moment. do I? don't I?. Having a single server set up also makes it very hard to do any application testing, so my only option is to ask on these forums which are a god send.
Main benefit for me using hyper-v would be the snapshot utility and disaster recovery. This is a massive reason for me looking at this approach.
Main negatives would be - Having to install 2008R2 twice (one on hardware and one as vm). It could under some circumstances create more issues than it solves (see post by sted above.
I still have no idea what I am going to do so hope a few more fellow geekers join this discussion.
Last edited by edutech4schools; 22nd June 2011 at 11:40 AM.
22nd June 2011, 06:20 PM #10
That question is answered easily, most servers come with dual NICs nowadays and on all of our Virtual Hosts we have at least 6 Nics.
Originally Posted by edutech4schools
That is so that we can have dedicated management, iSCSI, Backup links with Multiple Virtual and Physical Networks.
A Dual port NIC for your host server is not a major expense and it makes things much easier later.
Its all about getting the most out of your hardware, and Virtualisation will let you do that, but your origional scenario of a Single Server still applies in many cases...
The printer thing still niggles everybody and there are better men than me out there that have given up trying and still have a 32bit Print Server running on a VM...
I wasn't trying to discourage the Virtualisation option, just dont do it without good reason.
In many ways it probably has more advantages than you can initially see, such as the end user becomes more dependent on your services as they cant see these multiple servers you have created and the SMT will view you with suspicion as you appear to be practising witchcraft or something worse, as they cannot begin to comprehend your amazing powers...
By sted in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 21st October 2010, 01:04 PM
By duxbuz in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 28th March 2010, 03:04 PM
By Kamran7860 in forum Windows Server 2008 R2
Last Post: 12th May 2009, 06:04 PM
By Kamran7860 in forum Windows 7
Last Post: 5th May 2009, 02:17 PM
By Zoom7000 in forum How do you do....it?
Last Post: 24th September 2008, 08:45 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)