+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
Windows Thread, Physical to Virtual in Technical; Originally Posted by tmcd35 Just been looking at my 5-year development plan with the head, went very well , new ...
  1. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 34 Times in 21 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Just been looking at my 5-year development plan with the head, went very well , new servers are due to start rolling in around 2011 onwards. I'm positively salivating at the possible specs I'll be buying then! Dual Xeons, 16-Cores, 32-Threads, Ooooooh.
    If you're planning for that point in time allow for at least 4-way Xeon systems (which by then may be 16 cores each (32-threads each) - 64core CPU's)

    also by them the new samsung chips should be on the market (4GB per memory chip) prodicted 32GB per stick of RAM

    Also possibly solid state storage (or at least in your hosts)

  2. #17

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    @DAckroyd STOP IT! I'm gonna make a mess in my... Too late

  3. #18

    garethedmondson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Gowerton, Swansea
    Posts
    2,260
    Thank Post
    965
    Thanked 324 Times in 192 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by gshaw View Post
    Might be good to mention what hardware you're going for to run the virtualised servers as well? I' m thinking of Hyper-V for application servers and the like (still prefer Exchange and SQL on physical ones for now) but interested to hear what level of kit people are running it all on
    Well when we were with RM we purchased a new forsest root server which was fitted with 1Tb of drive space and 4Gb or RAM. Two Gb NICS and twin Xeon processors. I hope it is enought to run the following:

    1 x Print server - this is currently running on an old RM second forest root
    1 x RIS Server - not sure how these fit into a virtual scenario
    1 x Application Server - this houses our Successmaker Enterprise files and our Sibelius licence (and WSUS)
    1 x Exam server- running the WJEC Secure Assess software


    The main reason for doing this is increasing our green credentials and reducing the backup procedures.

    Out of interest - what are the benefits of going to virtual servers? How have people done it? I see myself creating each server, backing up them up to an off site location (DVD at home probably LOL Or NAS) and then running them. EVery big change means a new backup of the container file.

    Never done this before.

    Gareth

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 34 Times in 21 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    19
    if that is the spec of the machine you want as your host them look at upping the number of NIC's (I have 10 per host (2 on board, 2 cards of 4xgigabit). Alternativly you could look at 10Gbe cards to add in if you have the central switch to go with that.

    Not sure where you plan to store the data either? 1TB if you are running Hyper-V and only on one server should be ok, might even beable to sync that to a second server if you have a second for the job but you'll want to look at a SAN at some point


    Our reason for going virtual was because of the cost involved in upgrading our current servers (it worked out to cost about the same as 3 or 4 new desent spec servers). it also means I have a test enviroment for setting up our new domain (currently got about 10 new servers - wouldn't have that many with physical machins due to cost. we also have some xp and a windows 7 machine running on it. we should also see a bit of a drop in energy bills for both cooling and electricity

  5. #20
    gshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    2,650
    Thank Post
    164
    Thanked 217 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    66
    The main question now I guess is Hyper-V or VMWare?

    I'm thinking of trying to get the print server, basic app server onto one of our quicker boxes (currently runs on some 1U Opteron boxes with 1GB RAM and SATA HDs). Was thinking Hyper-V with local storage but to go for it properly would need some beefier kit.

    Will be an interesting plan for next few years though as these servers we have now are 3yrs old (time flies ) and with Evesham junking the warranties the replacement might come sooner rather than later

  6. #21

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,933
    Thank Post
    138
    Thanked 290 Times in 210 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by DAckroyd View Post
    3) Hyper-V server 2008 is FREE! (and good)
    It put me off doing updates and seeing IE7 (not part of core) being downloaded and installed.

    Why are patches for non-core parts required for 'core'?
    Why is its install size so large?
    MS recommend only one VM per lun?
    Hyper-V is also paravirtualized
    Last edited by Theblacksheep; 3rd February 2009 at 02:57 PM.

  7. #22

    garethedmondson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Gowerton, Swansea
    Posts
    2,260
    Thank Post
    965
    Thanked 324 Times in 192 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by DAckroyd View Post
    if that is the spec of the machine you want as your host them look at upping the number of NIC's (I have 10 per host (2 on board, 2 cards of 4xgigabit). Alternativly you could look at 10Gbe cards to add in if you have the central switch to go with that.

    Not sure where you plan to store the data either? 1TB if you are running Hyper-V and only on one server should be ok, might even beable to sync that to a second server if you have a second for the job but you'll want to look at a SAN at some point


    Our reason for going virtual was because of the cost involved in upgrading our current servers (it worked out to cost about the same as 3 or 4 new desent spec servers). it also means I have a test enviroment for setting up our new domain (currently got about 10 new servers - wouldn't have that many with physical machins due to cost. we also have some xp and a windows 7 machine running on it. we should also see a bit of a drop in energy bills for both cooling and electricity
    Gaps in my knowledge here. I am familiar with the VMWare range, Windows Virtual Server and Virtual Box. I have not read much on HYper-V 2008 - any pointers on this would be welcome.

    The user data is stored on a server provided by our LEA - I would not want to virtualise that as it is outside of our control. We look after it but are not allowed to break it.

    The servers I am going to virtualise are going to be spare so I guess I could double up the servers and run two physical servers to one store a few virtual servers - until we get to purchase or add bits to our main server.

    Thanks for the advice - looking forward to getting my teeth stuck in.

    Gareth

  8. #23

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Hyper-V is microsofts version of ESX(i) or Xen. A bare metal hypervisor. It requires a 64bit processor with Intel-VT and XD-bit support or AMD-V and ND-bit support. It is shipped as part of Windows 2008 Server (Hyper-V v1) or Windows 2008 Server R2 (Hyper-V v2).

    I believe there is a bare bones free download version as well. provides just enough of Win2k8 to install Hyper-V and setup VM's via command prompt.

    Windows 2008 Server include fail-over clustering which in turn gives High Availability support to the VM's. v2 includes microsofts version of 'vMotion', tranfering VM's between hosts without powerdown.

    Because of this, basically free within Win2k8r2, it is a very compelling solution when compared to how much you'd payout on the VMWare licenses to do the same job. Thus why I'm seriously looking at MS VM's here.

  9. Thanks to tmcd35 from:

    garethedmondson (5th February 2009)

  10. #24

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,933
    Thank Post
    138
    Thanked 290 Times in 210 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Windows 2008 Server include fail-over clustering which in turn gives High Availability support to the VM's. v2 includes microsofts version of 'vMotion', tranfering VM's between hosts without powerdown.

    Because of this, basically free within Win2k8r2, it is a very compelling solution when compared to how much you'd payout on the VMWare licenses to do the same job.
    You dont need vmotion to do live migrations with Vi3 or ESXi.... it can be done with scripts.

    You still need enterprise edition of server 2008 for live migrations (relies on clusters).
    Last edited by Theblacksheep; 3rd February 2009 at 02:55 PM.

  11. #25
    Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,579
    Thank Post
    211
    Thanked 220 Times in 176 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Hi Gareth. Glad to see you too are interested in Virtualisation.

    I've been using VMWare ESXi 3.5 (the free version) to some testing with regards to Virtualisation and P2V. On the whole I am very impressed with the way VMWare and Converter works - I have tried converting XP Workstations, CC3 Workstations, CC3 Terminal Servers and Vanilla Windows servers and all have worked correctly.

    In the short term, over the next year or two depending on funding, we are looking to virtualise 5 or 6 of our physical servers (not our CC3 domain controllers). Unless I get a big budget hike, I am going to be using the free version VMWare ESXi 3.5 coupled with a SAN of some kind. Now I had planned the SAN to be an off the shelf iSCSI box such as Adaptec Snap Server or a HP 2000i. But having just discovered "Openfiler" I am going to install that on a test workstation to try it out.

    I think the SAN is really important as one of the biggest benefits of virtualisation is divorcing the software from the hardware, and if you use local storage in your physical hosts, you are not divorcing the Virtual Machines from your physical host's hardware. If your RAID array fails, or the server fails, you are stuck with not being able to access that storage or those virtual images until that physical host is repaired.

    With a SAN however, if a physical host is lost, you can simply connect another physical host up to the SAN and get your VM's back up and running quickly. If course, this puts lots of reliance on the SAN - but your SAN should be specified with hot spare drives, redundant PSU's etc, and also it should be a big iron server from a big name manufacturer, with the required same day/next day support. You should also make sure all SAN data is mirrored onto another SAN, or NAS, just incase!

    I am planning to use three of our existing servers as virtual hosts, plugged into the SAN, and then convert our servers onto the virtual hosts.

    Hope this helps!

    Andrew

  12. Thanks to Butuz from:

    garethedmondson (5th February 2009)

  13. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 34 Times in 21 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Butuz View Post
    In the short term, over the next year or two depending on funding, we are looking to virtualise 5 or 6 of our physical servers (not our CC3 domain controllers). Unless I get a big budget hike, I am going to be using the free version VMWare ESXi 3.5 coupled with a SAN of some kind. Now I had planned the SAN to be an off the shelf iSCSI box such as Adaptec Snap Server or a HP 2000i. But having just discovered "Openfiler" I am going to install that on a test workstation to try it out.
    Is there any reason you are looking at iSCSI rather than fibre channel? If cost is the issue look at the MSA2000's (we use the dual controller version) good solid bottom end SAN. Even thought it doesn't use an 8Gbps Fibre channel connector yet (currently only 4gbps) it does work using 8Gbps kit and it's actually cheaper than 4Gbps equiverlants.

    also andrew, are you planning on connecting your RM CC3 server things to the SAN? as if you have the datastore already set on there that may make it easier when you come to move the servers over?

  14. #27
    DSapseid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,152
    Thank Post
    130
    Thanked 54 Times in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    38
    Does anyone have any thoughts on Citrix XenServer? I have got the 30 day trial version but havent really had a good chance to play with it yet.

  15. #28

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Butuz View Post
    Now I had planned the SAN to be an off the shelf iSCSI box such as Adaptec Snap Server or a HP 2000i. But having just discovered "Openfiler" I am going to install that on a test workstation to try it out.
    Please let us know how you get on with Openfiler. I may be looking at it myself early next year. I was going to base our SAN around SANMelody which I have used before and is a fantastic piece of software. But free is one hell of an attractive price!

  16. #29
    k-strider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester
    Posts
    357
    Thank Post
    7
    Thanked 40 Times in 30 Posts
    Rep Power
    23
    I am in the middle of moving as much as possible over to Virtualised infrastructure. at the moment i have a single Hyper-V (Core Enterprise) server 10GB and 2 quad core xeons 1U intel with mirrored Disks. It runs just Dandy at the moment, though i wouldn't like to put much more on it.
    1 MO Sharepoint 2007 Server (Front End not DB)
    1 EPortal (CMIS Web Front End)
    1 Moodle Server <- on win2k3 lightly used experimental.. not happy that the DB is on the VHD but don't know enough about linux or moodle to set it up properly..
    1 Heritage 2K8 Library System server.
    Old kelidos V2 server (again under used another story) and MSDE on VHD
    it also ran QCA onscreen testing and runs Edexcel server when required.

    I am going to get another next year and do the 2k8r2 load balancing thingymebob

    My Question is on SAN this is where i would like to know what people do... do you attach the SAN to the Hyper-V/Virtual host and dump the VHDs on it or do you in the Virtual Servers add an iSCSI host and offer the SAN space direct to the Virtual host data D: Drive as it were... <- im thinking this might be better for Light DB stuff .. or you could start to visualize file servers maybe?

    I will have a look at Openfiler as i was looking at Linux for SAN as i want to do it myself and Win doesn't do it out the Box :-( again Core would have been ideal!

  17. #30

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by k-strider View Post
    My Question is on SAN this is where i would like to know what people do... do you attach the SAN to the Hyper-V/Virtual host and dump the VHDs on it or do you in the Virtual Servers add an iSCSI host and offer the SAN space direct to the Virtual host data D: Drive as it were... <- im thinking this might be better for Light DB stuff .. or you could start to visualize file servers maybe?

    I will have a look at Openfiler as i was looking at Linux for SAN as i want to do it myself and Win doesn't do it out the Box :-( again Core would have been ideal!
    The idea behind the SAN (and virtualisation for that matter) is that you have multiple Hyper-V servers in a Failover Cluster. The same LUNs (hard drive partitions) on the SAN are connected to all of the Hyper-V servers via iSCSI (or Fibre). The VHD's are then stores on the SAN. All HDD's in your VM's should be VHD's stored on the SAN.

    This means that all Hyper-V servers can see all VHD's. This is what allows the High Availability and Live Migration features of Hyper-V to function.

    To set this up correctly you will need Win2k8-R2 which finally allows file level locking rather than partition level locking and thus multiple Hyper-V servers can access the same LUN. Win2k8-R1 locks the LUN to the first Hyper-V server to attach to it and so Live Migration is not currently available. High Availability works because when the initial Hyper-V server fails the LUN is released for another Hyper-V server to pick up.

  18. Thanks to tmcd35 from:

    k-strider (5th February 2009)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thin Client \ Virtual Desktop \ Virtual Apps
    By gshaw in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17th December 2008, 06:04 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11th December 2008, 03:34 PM
  3. Physical Memory In Win XP Pro
    By sLiDeR in forum Windows
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13th June 2008, 05:31 PM
  4. VMWare Physical Configuration
    By JamesC in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26th February 2008, 11:11 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
  •