+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
Windows 7 Thread, Which server in Technical; Okay, so I'm still trying to gaze into my crystal ball and forecast what we will be doing over the ...
  1. #1

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349

    Which server

    Okay, so I'm still trying to gaze into my crystal ball and forecast what we will be doing over the next 5 years.

    One thing is clear, XP's extended support is up in 2014, so logically it need's replacing at some point over the next 5-year development cycle. And logically Windows 7 is that replacement.

    One question that enters my mind is - what version of Windows Server will I need when I deploy Windows 7?

    Forgive me for being a little green here but I've only ever worked in a Windows 2003/Windows-XP environment. I wasn't 'in the business' for the change from Win2K and nobody I know as even considered deploying Vista.

    In terms of AD support, features, security, etc. Will I have to run Win2k8R2 servers with Windows 7? Or will Windows 2003R2 give the same level of AD support as the latest server product?

  2. #2
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    Windows 7 will be designed to be managed by Windows Server 2008 R2.

    If you are planning that far ahead (5 years) I would aim to replace Server 2003. You will probably be able to run Server 2003 in the same way you could use NT4 or Server 2000 with Windows XP but you will not be able to take advantage of the new features.

  3. #3

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,518
    Thank Post
    526
    Thanked 2,641 Times in 2,045 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    923
    To make use of all the Windows 7 features, you'll need Windows 2008 R2.

  4. #4

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by somabc View Post
    Windows 7 will be designed to be managed by Windows Server 2008 R2.

    If you are planning that far ahead (5 years) I would aim to replace Server 2003. You will probably be able to run Server 2003 in the same way you could use NT4 or Server 2000 with Windows XP but you will not be able to take advantage of the new features.
    That's pretty much what I thought! I guess it's too early to tell since both have only just entered Beta stage, but I'd be interested to know what features you'd miss out on.

    In particular I want to know how using Window Server 2008 over 2008 R2 would effect the use of GPO to secure the little darlings desktops on Windows 7.

    I'll confess there is another reason for the question...

    Win2k8 R2 is 64bit only and to support virtualisation the processor must support Intel VT (or AMD equiv).

    I have 3 very good spec server that I plan to upgrade ram on and use for virtualisation. I don't intend to replace those servers before changing to Win7/Win2k8(R2?). The processors on those servers are 64bit but don't support Intel VT.

    So I can't run virtualised copies of Win2k8 R2 which appears to be 64bit only!
    Last edited by tmcd35; 30th January 2009 at 06:21 PM. Reason: edited Win2k8 version for clarification of 64bit requirement.

  5. #5
    PeterW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    750
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts
    Rep Power
    32
    The processors on those servers are 64bit but don't support Intel VT.
    What CPUs out of interest? Opterons?

  6. #6
    Oops_my_bad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Man chest hair
    Posts
    1,738
    Thank Post
    438
    Thanked 53 Times in 50 Posts
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Win2k8 is 64bit only
    Nope, our SIMS server is 2008 32bit

  7. #7

    dhicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    5,770
    Thank Post
    1,308
    Thanked 804 Times in 698 Posts
    Rep Power
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    So I can't run virtualised copies of Win2k8 R2 which appears to be 64bit only!
    Could you run Windows under QEMU instead, skipping the need for hardware virtualisation support? That's what I'm doing for our NT4 virtual server, seems to work just fine.

    --
    David Hicks

  8. #8
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    112
    You can use a Hypervisor that does not require processor extensions such as VMware server, it will just be slightly slower.

    QEMU emulates the hardware and this will be too slow for production use unless the software is really old (NT4, Win 98 etc).

  9. #9

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    What CPUs out of interest? Opterons?
    Intel Dual-Core Xeon 7000

    You can use a Hypervisor that does not require processor extensions such as VMware server, it will just be slightly slower.
    Xen requires Intel VT (or AMD equiv) to run any Windows OS. Hyper-V is 64bit only and also requires VT (or equiv). ESX/ESXi requires VT (or equiv.) for 64bit OS's (but not for 32bit OS's).

    Haven't looked into the requirements of VMWare Server. Does mean running on top of a host OS, prob. linux, and if it does work I'll assume the host has to be 64bit? It's an option but fly's in the face of my VCP training and virtualisation instincts which says - use a bare metal hypervision for this kind of production environment.

    Another option is to replace the processors. A quick look over at Insight suggests a cost of £400 per processor. For 6 processors thats a lot. Especially when adding it onto the costs of replacing Windows Server, Windows Desktop, CAL's, MS-Office and SAN upgrades. And that's assuming Socket-604 processors will even be available at the point I can afford to do this.

    I think I'll have no choice but to use Win2k8 (not R2) with Win7 until the servers are up for replacement. I'm just worried about any security/GPO implications this would have. It's a shame as there are features in R2 that look very interesting.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 30th January 2009 at 06:22 PM.

  10. #10

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Oops_my_bad View Post
    Nope, our SIMS server is 2008 32bit
    Sorry, my bad Should have read Win2k8 R2 is 64bit only.

  11. #11

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,271
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,322 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Intel Dual-Core Xeon 7000
    Not meaning to question you but are you sure? The Intel site and wikipedia both suggest that this technology is included. Have you checked them with CPU-z

  12. Thanks to SYNACK from:

    tmcd35 (30th January 2009)

  13. #12

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Not meaning to question you but are you sure? The Intel site and wikipedia both suggest that this technology is included. Have you checked them with CPU-z
    Checked with .:: CPUInfo ::. and couldn't find mention of VT. Also this wikipedia entry appears to suggest it doesn't

    List of Intel Xeon microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's the Paxville DP model. Dual-Core, Hyper-Threaded, 64bit, Socket 604. No mention of VT.

    I'm off to check the intel site. Would love be wrong as it mean's I can get back to planning the transition over the next 3-5 years.

  14. #13

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,271
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,322 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I'm off to check the intel site. Would love be wrong as it mean's I can get back to planning the transition over the next 3-5 years.
    You must have the one with 4MB cache rather than the 2MB cache one which is unfourtunate. CPUInfo should have shown if it was avalible but might be worth checking again with a different tool. Given that those chips were put out in 2005 you should probably have newer server gear in your upgrade plans before the 3-5 year mark as those boxes can't still be under warrenty and being netburst based would probably be struggeling with any heavily multithreaded processing work anyway. This is the direction that most OSs are going at the moment and virtulisation really benifits from it. You're right that it is probably not worth the money to upgrade these boxes and if your set on virtualisation then you may end up limited to Server 2008 32-bit or using a different virtualisation system.

  15. #14

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    6,060
    Thank Post
    896
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 821 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    349
    Well, Intel's website quite clearly states VT enabled. Unfortunately, being a production server, I can't just switch it off and go into BIOS to check. I'll give CPUz ago Monday.

    According to to your link the 4M Cache version doesn't have HT, my servers definatly do have HT. So they must be the 2M Cache version which according to intel should have VT. Interesting

    You're right, I am looking at incorparting server upgrades into the 5-year plan, but these servers were supposed to be towards the end of the 5 years! Before I really started digging I saw 3 servers with 4Gb Ram and 8-cores each. I was going to up them to 16Gb Ram and use them as the basis of virtualisation. Turns out they only have 4-cores each and are hyper-threaded.

    The problem I seem to be having at the moment is juggling our need to standardise on a version of Office, Work out an upgrade path from XP, implement a SAN, move to virtualisation, Remove Winsuite and upgrade the physical servers.

    Working out the correct order to do these jobs in, how much each is likely to cost and the implications of each change is quiet a challenge. Can't do them all at once - bad practice, and couldn't afford it. So I need to prioritise and work out how each job effect the other.


  16. #15
    PeterW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    750
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts
    Rep Power
    32
    The 7030 is Paxville MP I believe, if you have these then you should have VT. If you are going to have a poke around in the BIOS the VT option might be called vanderpool technology.



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

Similar Threads

  1. Server 2008 AD issue across forest trust with Server 2003 R2 AD
    By dhess1013 in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11th October 2008, 11:00 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 03:34 PM
  3. Windows Server 2003 File Server Resource Manager
    By mrforgetful in forum Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17th June 2007, 02:51 PM
  4. Virtual Server 2005 R2 kills server network connection
    By ajbritton in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31st August 2006, 07:19 AM
  5. Downsides to passing tftp server via 2003 DHCP server?
    By pete in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11th July 2006, 11:07 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
  •