Which server

[tmcd35]

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?

[somabc]

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.

[localzuk]

To make use of all the Windows 7 features, you'll need Windows 2008 R2.

[tmcd35]

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!

Edited January 30, 2009 by tmcd35
edited Win2k8 version for clarification of 64bit requirement.

[PeterW]

The processors on those servers are 64bit but don't support Intel VT.

 

What CPUs out of interest? Opterons?

[Oops_my_bad]

Win2k8 is 64bit only

Nope, our SIMS server is 2008 32bit

[dhicks]

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

[somabc]

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).

[tmcd35]

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.

Edited January 30, 2009 by tmcd35

[tmcd35]

Nope, our SIMS server is 2008 32bit

 

Sorry, my bad Should have read Win2k8 R2 is 64bit only.

[SYNACK]

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

[tmcd35]

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.

[SYNACK]

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.

[tmcd35]

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.

 

[PeterW]

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.

[dhicks]

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.

 

If I remember correctly, hardware virtualisation support is a switch on/offable option on some (all?) processors - you'll have to schedule a spot of downtime for your servers, reboot them and see if you can enable VT.

 

--

David Hicks