+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30
Windows Thread, What server to virtualize? in Technical; When people talk about redundancy and fail overs what do you mean? Does vitualizing allow you to run a 2nd ...
  1. #16
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,738
    Thank Post
    894
    Thanked 414 Times in 348 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    85
    When people talk about redundancy and fail overs what do you mean?

    Does vitualizing allow you to run a 2nd powerful server with the same data that can be simply switched on when the main one fails?

  2. #17

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    I'm looking at Win2K8R2 Datacenter and Hyper-V2 as my virtualisation platform. The idea being that the three (or four) physical hosts are the DC's and name servers and everything else is run in it's own VM on top of them.

  3. #18

    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 ittech View Post
    When people talk about redundancy and fail overs what do you mean?

    Does vitualizing allow you to run a 2nd powerful server with the same data that can be simply switched on when the main one fails?
    genrally what is mean is having 2+ servers connected to a SAN (or 2) with redundant links so the VM's run off of the san and if one host goes down the second takes on the machine until it feels like going back over

    it also works as load balancing

  4. #19

    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
    I'm looking at Win2K8R2 Datacenter and Hyper-V2 as my virtualisation platform. The idea being that the three (or four) physical hosts are the DC's and name servers and everything else is run in it's own VM on top of them.
    I think microsofts recommendation is that hyper-v servers is a hyper-v server, nothing more - the thing that they are trying for is a server for each role and your lock you server down as that is the only thing that needs to happen on it (easier to do now with virtual machines and the vm licening they run)

  5. #20

    EduTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    5,037
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 908 Times in 712 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    270
    We have everything virtulised apart from the HOSTS ofcourse and the storage servers aswell as ISA.

    James.

  6. #21
    DMcCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Isle of Wight
    Posts
    3,421
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 486 Times in 426 Posts
    Rep Power
    110
    Everything here is virtualised, apart from the backup server as that one is very heavy i/o and needs a tape drive attached.

    DCs have been virtual for the last 4 years now, as long as you are careful then there is nothing to worry about. We run 4 hosts (down from 6 blades) with sufficient capacity to take one off line at a time for maintenance and updates.

  7. #22
    MACIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    51
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    At the end of the day it comes down to planning. Plan and spec it well and you will fine and never look back. Plan it badly and or spec it below what is reilly needed and you will get your fingers burnt! Since 100% virtualisation we have taken the entire domain down several times due to power cuts etc and as long as the management system (on my case vmware virtual centre) is on a physical box (none domain member, fixed ip etc you will be fine. And even if that does crash you can still connect to the esx's individually to move stuff around/ power up etc. One finaly thought keep buy a huge amount of storage And keep copies of the virtual machines.

  8. #23

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by DAckroyd View Post
    I think microsofts recommendation is that hyper-v servers is a hyper-v server, nothing more - the thing that they are trying for is a server for each role and your lock you server down as that is the only thing that needs to happen on it (easier to do now with virtual machines and the vm licening they run)
    Great idea but you require a running DC for Hyper-V to work so the PDC can't be virtualised. The PDC needs a DNS server so 1xDNS and 1xDC need to be physical. Do I have two cheap, but very fast servers sitting idle waiting for the odd DC or DNS request or do I say "I've got three 8 thread 12Gb server running Hyper-V, they can double up as DC's and DNS"

    It's good advice, just in this case I think running three DC+DNS+Hyper-V servers the better way to go.

  9. #24

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,528
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Great idea but you require a running DC for Hyper-V to work so the PDC can't be virtualised. The PDC needs a DNS server so 1xDNS and 1xDC need to be physical. Do I have two cheap, but very fast servers sitting idle waiting for the odd DC or DNS request or do I say "I've got three 8 thread 12Gb server running Hyper-V, they can double up as DC's and DNS"

    It's good advice, just in this case I think running three DC+DNS+Hyper-V servers the better way to go.
    Hyper-V needs a DC? Have you got a source for that? That is an odd requirement!

  10. #25

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    Hyper-V: The Domain Controller Dilemma

    That was just a quick web search. Can't remember where I found the detail originally.

    Though, thinking about it - do the Hyper-V server themselves have to be be domain members?

    I think, from memory, it boils down to access permissions on a SAN cluster shared volumes - but I could be wrong.

  11. #26
    RinSewand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wakefield
    Posts
    264
    Thank Post
    14
    Thanked 46 Times in 43 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    From point 2 in the article you linked, if they aren't in the domain you lose 'the security advantages' and it makes having multiple administers more laborious, plus you don't get all the SCVMM advangtages.

    RwD

  12. #27

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,528
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    I'd go with that guy's option 4 - combining Hyper-V with high availability tools (IIRC it either comes with it built in, or it can be bolted on with the Citrix Essentials for Hyper V), even if the physical box went down, it would live migrate anyway. So, not so much of an issue.

  13. #28

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    I admit it, I've only just sat down and read that article in full. When I posted I was just quickly linking to a third party explanation of the problem

    Any who, although not Ideal I can't see what is wrong with making each of your Hyper-V servers DC's and DNS servers. If they all have a copy of the global catalogue then you don't have too meny issues unless all three (in this case) go down.

    Re-run any effected VM's on the still working server. Users should be able to log and access work while youwork at fixing the downed server.

    You can easily back-up AD with NTBackup, automated. If you have to do a complete rebuild then all three services are standard components of Window Server and easy to install.

    Pah! Horses for courses!

  14. #29
    MACIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    51
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I admit it, I've only just sat down and read that article in full. When I posted I was just quickly linking to a third party explanation of the problem

    Any who, although not Ideal I can't see what is wrong with making each of your Hyper-V servers DC's and DNS servers. If they all have a copy of the global catalogue then you don't have too meny issues unless all three (in this case) go down.

    Re-run any effected VM's on the still working server. Users should be able to log and access work while youwork at fixing the downed server.

    You can easily back-up AD with NTBackup, automated. If you have to do a complete rebuild then all three services are standard components of Window Server and easy to install.

    Pah! Horses for courses!
    Just backup the VM's its one file per OS Hard disk.

  15. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    66
    Thanked 34 Times in 21 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    19
    it would be worth considering where your user areas are stored (on DC's, on VMs or using DfS

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Virtualize Terminal Server
    By techie08 in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 1st May 2009, 03:32 PM
  2. 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, 10:00 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 02:34 PM
  4. Windows Server 2003 File Server Resource Manager
    By mrforgetful in forum Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17th June 2007, 01:51 PM
  5. Servers: Consolidate, Seperate or virtualize?
    By thom in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st February 2007, 02:49 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
  •