DCUK6 Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) Have 2 1/2 weeks to decide if i should install my file server on the physical machine or inside a hyper-v. Pros of virtual is i can have Replication setup to copy to another hyperv server. Up until my last network rebuild ive always gone for the file server to be straight on the physical box, this time i chose to go virtual which is ok but sometimes its a bit slow (could be hardware) I now have a nice server free with 12xSAS drives and deciding which route to go down. The hyper v role will be installed no matter what as i want to use it as a good replication server for other machines, but not sure yet whether to have the files on the host or inside a VM. Im also moving the SIMS server to this for faster access. I know you shouldnt have multiple roles on a machines but are the file server roles and hyper v known for any conflicts? My main priorities are: Speed, reliability, ease of backup. Not sure why but ive always been a bit on the side of physical but i think thats because all my previous schools just had raid 1 so if the hardware goes i can just rip out the drive and stick it in another machine and access the data, cant really do that with raid 6. How do you do yours? Edited July 10, 2017 by DCUK6
LTurner692 Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 We use a Virtual, Never have an issue with speed or reliability , back ups are easy.
TwistedHelixis Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 All my primary schools use VM's and are very fast. I also have Sims on the same VM as the data / files
Oaktech Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 VM till the cows come home... Everything I own is virtual, bar 2 HP micro servers that do backup in another building and a physical DC.
zag Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) Virtual, couldn't imagine going back to physical servers again. Veeam sorts the backup/restore of individual files from the VM with no issues. Edited July 10, 2017 by zag
NB9457 Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Currently physical and it's driving me mad. Trying to push for Virtual, so much easier to manage and backup. Currently all our Staff, Student, Admin and Domain Controller sit upon one server and it's one mass point of physical failure. Can't wait to split the roles and go virtual!
dhicks Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 How do you do yours? Half and half - virtual machine, with a dedicated RAID array passed through to the VM as a dedicated storage volume. Originally done for performance, but probably not really necessary.
pcstru Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Half and half - virtual machine, with a dedicated RAID array passed through to the VM as a dedicated storage volume. Originally done for performance, but probably not really necessary. ^This, but our back end arrays are cheap and cheerful things so we did it for cheapiness but it happily copes with the demand we throw at it.
DCUK6 Posted July 10, 2017 Author Posted July 10, 2017 Half and half - virtual machine, with a dedicated RAID array passed through to the VM as a dedicated storage volume. Originally done for performance, but probably not really necessary. Does this mean on the host you can load up the drive and see normal files or has it created a VHD on that volume? Just trying to work how that would be recovered in the evernt of a complete failure. You must be able to restore individual files but what about the entire volume?
6Foot2 Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 All servers but one are virtual. The one physical server is our school-dc-01 [Physical, just in case...] Backup is via Dell AppAssure. No problems since we first went virtual over three years ago [Due for a refresh/renew, if we had the money...]
dhicks Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Does this mean on the host you can load up the drive and see normal files or has it created a VHD on that volume? Yes, on the host we could mount the NTFS file system contained on the disk array and see normal files, there's no VHD or similar created on that volume. We should be able to switch the storage volume between VMs - this is what we plan to do to upgrade the file server to Windows Server 2016 over the summer. Simply create a new VM based on Server 2016, detach the storage volume from the old VM and attach it to the new one.
Devontechie Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Any new servers that I have been putting in for the companies I Support have been virtual apart from 1 Server that had Server 2016 essentials because of cost!
gshaw Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Virtual, fired up 3 new ones in a DFS Namespace for a migration project not so long ago
localzuk Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Our legacy network (being replaced this summer), all physical. The new network, all virtual. It just makes DR so much easier now.
PotNoodleTech Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Virtual since 2009 here. Personally I believe there is no reason to go physical. None at all, not even cost (free ESXi, Free Veeam) If your rolling new servers they should all be virtual. It increases uptime, makes easy backup and restores and makes testing of backups possible from any physical host to any other physical host which is a boon compared to the old way of having to build a server from scratch, spend 12 hours then restoring all your data from tape onto it, then hope to heck it actually works! 1
LeMarchand Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Virtual apart from one school that is scheduled to move to VMs over the summer.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now