VM's where to start

[cookie_monster]

Currently we don't use any virtualization but as we 'should' soon be receiving funds to overhaul our network and so virtualization is something that we're thinking about.

 

I'm not quite sure where to start or which products to look at. We currently have some Citrix kit so i might take a look at XenServer but of course VMWare and Hyper-V are also options.

 

As always budget is a factor so the lower cost the better. What are peoples opinions of the different products on offer, anyone used more than one? Also is anyone using the free versions on their networks and what are the drawbacks of the free versions?

 

Our current setup has about 7 servers all of them run server 2003 and a couple of them are Citrix boxes. We also have a Sun Storage 7110 SAN device that i imagine can be used for storing virtual disks.

 

What other details should i be taking into consideration while thinking about this direction.

 

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

Cheers.

[dhicks]

Also is anyone using the free versions on their networks

 

Yes, all our servers run Xen on top of CentOS. Installation consisted of ticking "virtualisation" on the install CD's options menu.

 

and what are the drawbacks of the free versions?

 

No one believes you when you tell them you don't actually have to spend stacks of time and/or money setting up a virtualised system.

 

--

David Hicks

[Butuz]

Was going to be going VMWare but after Citrix XEN was made free - its impossible to ignore.

 

So going XEN here - will describe in more detail for you after I've finished the housework

 

Butuz

[cookie_monster]

No one believes you when you tell them you don't actually have to spend stacks of time and/or money setting up a virtualised system

 

I've just become used to non GPL 'free' versions of products missing certain features that you can't do without. I might take a look at CentOS. Are you using this to virtualize windows servers?

 

 

I'll be interested to hear about Citrix XEN as well cheers Butuz

[Theblacksheep]

what are the drawbacks of the free versions?

 

Hyper-v (free/non-free):

- Requires ENT or DATA licences for advanced features

- Needs SCVMM (not free) for cluster features.

- Poor P2V (not restricted to free version)

- No live migration

- No native nic teaming

- No memory overcommit

- No page consolidation

- Isos create copied instances

- Limited linux OS support

- Limited linux features supprot

- No cluster file system (one VM per lun)

- Snapshots not deleted until VMs reboot

- No DRS

- Large install size

- Requres normal windows updates even for features that are not used (ie7)

- No VM restart priority on crash

 

 

 

ESXi-free

- Requires VCenter server for cluster management

- Requires Vcenter agent on host for cluster management

- HA requires Vi3 standard licence

- Live migrate requires Vi3 Enterprise licence

- DRS requires Vi3 Enterprise licence

 

 

Citrix Server Enterprise-Free

- No HA

- No DRS

- No Page sharing

- No 802.1Q trunking

 

 

 

If you have the cash for hardware and software: VMware Enterpise. Hands down.

 

If your on a budget Xen-server-enterpsie with sen-server-enterprise-essentials.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Theblacksheep

[matt40k]

Xen has a lot better performance then VMware. However, most of the Xen development was done by Redhat, who, lets face it are going to drop (if they haven't already) since Citrix took over.

 

Similiar thing happened with MySQL\Redhat.

 

I think Sun Virtualbox looks interesting... hands up who uses there software currently?

(Note they make OpenOffice, MySQL, Java...)

[Theblacksheep]

Xen has a lot better performance then VMware.

 

For VDI its a good 20% faster at the moment.

 

Not seen anything for servers which suggest it has better performance.

[matt40k]

For VDI its a good 20% faster at the moment.

 

Not seen anything for servers which suggest it has better performance.

 

Might want to look out side of the VMware family then

 

Plus if you use the extra £££ to get better hardware. Only time I've seen VMware win is when you get VMware approved hardware (ESX ?) and lets face it, you're talk SAN, fibre channel and major money.

[Theblacksheep]

Only time I've seen VMware win is when you get VMware approved hardware

 

Something generally works better when it uses the proper approved hardware

[matt40k]

... and I don't like the idea of pay £££ for a little sticker saying it's approved. I'll pay for proper hardware that's fully supported and save my money for extra RAM

[Theblacksheep]

... save my money for extra RAM

 

Well you can never have too much ram!

[torledo]

For VDI its a good 20% faster at the moment.

 

Not seen anything for servers which suggest it has better performance.

 

that vdi boost is assuming your using xendesktop WITH xenserver, which kind of means you have to buy into citrix ? ofcourse that entails signifcant licensing costs if your not already a xenapp shop,

 

vmware can also be used with xendesktop instead of xenserver for vdi [useful if you have an existing vmware infrastructure] i just don't know whether it's as well documented [by citrix atleast] but playing nice with vmware or being able to utilize vmware in a vdi solution is essential as it's a defacto industry standard for virtualization of servers where people do have money to spend and need all those enterprise features, and are consolidating down from dozens or hundreds of servers. there's a lot of money invested in vmware infrastructure and training. And even if you don't have a vmware investment, vmware is still a compelling choice for a greenfield site because of it's market leadership.

 

my own personal view is that there are more options and there is going to be more development with vmware on the vdi side of things, not only vmware's own product but integration with third parties. there's a lot going on with stuff like teradici that could give vmware a competitive edge by 2010. Sure citrix got some cool stuff with the acquisition of ardence and ofcourse they have a headstart with ICA but the fact that vmware are working to integrate features so that technologies from third parties can integrate and utilise vmware on the server side makes it a potentially more compelling offering than xenserver in my view.

 

expect vmware to be competing against citrix/xen in regards to embedded client hypervisors....another potential big thing for 2010.

[torledo]

Xen has a lot better performance then VMware. However, most of the Xen development was done by Redhat, who, lets face it are going to drop (if they haven't already) since Citrix took over.

 

Similiar thing happened with MySQL\Redhat.

 

I think Sun Virtualbox looks interesting... hands up who uses there software currently?

(Note they make OpenOffice, MySQL, Java...)

 

care to substantiate that first comment ? seems a bit of a generalisation.

[Theblacksheep]

my own personal view is that there are more options and there is going to be more development with vmware on the vdi side of things, not only vmware's own product but integration with third parties. there's a lot going on with stuff like teradici that could give vmware a competitive edge by 2010.

 

expect vmware to be competing against citrix/xen in regards to embedded client hypervisors....another potential big thing for 2010.

 

It's going to be interesting to see how view is developed and how that links in with its client side hypervisor, enabling powerfull 'offline' VMs.

 

NxTops Client Side Hypervisor is meant to be released nowish (they did speak about this being free for 5 clients too), theres a race with the companies to get this out this year.... although VT on cpu requirement will limit its use on most PCs for now.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Theblacksheep

[dhicks]

Are you using this to virtualize windows servers?

 

Yes, we have our domain controller, print server and applications server all running as Windows VMs under Xen. We licensed two machines for Windows Server 2008 Enterprise edition, so we can run four copies of Windows on one machine and mirror them to the other machine. We've had a few problems with the application server crashing, but I get the impression that's more to do with the applications involved than the fact that it's running as a VM - the DC and print servers have been running fine for months on end.

 

This is, of course, server-side virtualisation only, for virtual desktops delivered to desktop machines you're probably looking at something you have to pay for. It's a good point about the GPL version of Xen in RedHat / CentOS / other distributions being replaced by something else. However, all server-orientated Linux distributions will still be shipping with an integrated VM system of some kind, so the general advice is still download your favourite distribution, tick "install VM system" during install, done.

 

--

David Hicks

Edited April 4, 2009 by dhicks

[tmcd35]

Not usually an M$ advocate, and I am a VCP (vmware) but I wouldn't count M$ out of this fight so quickly.

 

One of the questions the you should ask before settling on a technology, be it VMWare, Xen or Hyper-V, is what type of servers and desktops are you currently supporting and are likely to support in the future?

 

We are a Windows only shop here. All our servers and desktops currently run Windows. We have no Macs and although I'm personally a Mac user the school is extremely unlikely to get any in the future. Same with Linux although I dable in Linux/BSD from time to time - it's extremely unlikely we will ever deplopy a *nix server or desktop.

 

Where are you going after Windows XP? We are going to Windows 7 - which will necessitate Windows 2008R2 on the server. Windows 2008R2 comes with hyper-v.

 

The next version of Hyper-V (due with 2008R2) answers a few of the problems with the existing version. Namely better cluster support and live migration.

 

If money is no option - go VMWare. It's definitely the best all round feature wise.

 

If you're a Windows only shop - consider Hyper-V alongside the Xen/VMware freebies

 

If you're a mixed Linux/Windows shop then you'll probably be comfortable with Xen.

[torledo]

@dhicks

 

now that redhat and other distros appear to be moving toward kvm as the default virtualization, are you tempted to switch to that from xen....or would it not be a like for like replacment ?

[matt40k]

care to substantiate that first comment ? seems a bit of a generalisation.

 

You mean Xen (non-commerical) performance over VMware or the interesting stuff coming from Sun Micro Systems?

[dhicks]

now that redhat and other distros appear to be moving toward kvm as the default virtualization, are you tempted to switch to that from xen....or would it not be a like for like replacment ?

 

I figure there's no need to change any time soon. We'll need to look at switching when we either have software that won't work under Xen (and Server 2008 runs fine, so that'll be a while - maybe a decade?) or we buy hardware that won't run CentOS with Xen on it, which given our budget is going to be at least 5 years.

 

--

David Hicks

[Mids-Tech]

Hi Guys, I'm a newbie to EduGeek so please be gentle...... What a fantastic resource!!!! People who actually share my daily plight!

 

Anywho, VM's - I was a bit of a VM virgin until last September when our school invested massively in new server kit and an awesome ESX box.....

 

I have been through the mental block of, but hang on a sec 1 box 7 servers, 16 processors, 18GB RAM, how the hell will all this work! I can't touch it...... what will I do with my beloved screw driver now!!!!!!

 

The Point.... We are running VM Ware ESX and have 5 virtual servers sitting in our magic box of tricks. We have 2 Physical rack mounted servers.

 

Physical 1 - Management Server - Deals with network monitoring - Servers Alive & Switch Monitoring, Backup Devices.

Physical 2 - ADC server - Primary Domain Server - Connected to SAN and providing primary data shares.

 

ESX - BOX 'O' Tricks

 

1- Secondary Domain Controller - Helps with Logon, DNS etc. Load Balancing.

2- Print Server - err well it does exactly what is says on the box, doh! No box.... well you get it!

3- RIS Server - Our Remote Install Server - Houses all software for distribution either manually or through Group Policy. Also Provides .WIM machine images for boot installation of various OS builds direct to machines. (Really Reliable and super fast - 15 -20mins gets you a full XP machine with 20+ apps installed and ready to go and logon to)

4- IIS Server - Currently used for Policy Central, Sharepoint Test & VOIP Testing.

5- SQL Server - CMIS, Booking Pro (Resource & Lettings), Various Other SQL requirements.

 

I really do rate the system and setup, the ability to house all of these systems and be able to segregate and alocate resources on the fly is a real plus. Obviously we do regular backups the traditional way to tapes but we also have the ability to take VM snapshots before any changes take place as a "oopps we broke it" recovery plan.... Not that it has ever happened..... we'll move on...

 

VM is also a fantastic way of doing development and testing as you can create (as we have) a virtual network which is isolated from the production environment and test to breaking point if you want then just bin it and start again. We have a test bed virtual network of a cloned server and 4 cloned workstations which we can introduce anything from new software, hardware changes or even the latest viruses and "see what happens"! If you told anyone in the past you were going to do that then you would be shot!

 

I'm not hear to say VM Ware is the best as I have not really sampled the alternatives on such a grand scale, but if anyone is interested and wants further info or maybe even come and see it then by all means get in touch...

 

Sorry for going on a bit.... This is a summary not a full run down....

 

Now back to my group policy roll out..... well it worked virtually....

 

Thanks

Edited April 6, 2009 by Mids-Tech

[cookie_monster]

Just ballpark figures but how much does VMWare cost you Mids-Tech and what are the costs related to, e.g. licence per server or per hosted OS, CAL's etc?

[nicholab]

Has no one had a proper virtualization assessment?

[Mids-Tech]

Just ballpark figures but how much does VMWare cost you Mids-Tech and what are the costs related to, e.g. licence per server or per hosted OS, CAL's etc?

 

I'll have to delve into the docs, which are a closely guarded secret round here, to compile the full costing but what I can tell you is.... VM Ware recently made there ESXi free so you can do what we have for free (excluding the hardware & Windows licences obviously)!!!! Jaw drop I know! Go to this link Free VMware ESXi: Bare Metal Hypervisor with Live Migration - VMware and you can download it. I think you have to register but there is no bombardment of emails or hassle.

 

If you have any old servers or decent spec PC lying around like I did, you can test it out.

 

Also this might be worth a look for you. VMware Server Features, Free Virtual Server Consolidation - VMware again another freebie! Seriously though it is easy to get set-up and I would be happy to help in anyway I can.

 

I can say that most of our cost went on hardware and them getting a third party to put it together then I got employed and told to make it work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 6, 2009 by Mids-Tech

[tmcd35]

Has no one had a proper virtualization assessment?

 

Whats one of them? Sounds expensive. Standard education IT rules apply - RITM, Common Sense, Jump in and Cross Fingers.

 

Seriously, If you take your time, plan, research and correctly spec the servers you'll be fine - do I need to spend ££££'s for a consultant to tell me I've got to plan, research and correctly sped the servers?

[powdarrmonkey]

Has no one had a proper virtualization assessment?

 

I am a virtualisation assessment.