What server to virtualize?

[meki71]

Hi all, I'm trying to consolidate our servers and trying to virtualize some server in our inventory to lessen some expenses and servers to the servers room. And I have no idea on what servers to virtualize.

 

 

Is it ok to virtualize:

 

1. DHCP server

2. Application server

3. Web server

4. Antivirus server

5.Domain Controller

6. Proxy server

 

Is it ok if this servers will be virtualized in just one physical server?

And are there any server in the list that cannot be virtualize because of performance issue?

 

 

Really need your help. Thanks.

[ful56_uk]

All of our servers run on esx and we haven't had any slow downs reported to us. It all depends on the spec of the network and host really

[Dos_Box]

I would be a bit cautious runnning a domain controller and network services on a virtual platform, as these are areas the (IMHO) I would want instantly available without relying on an extra layer to bring them to life. Not to say it isn't done, just that I wouldn't do it!

Before I quit to run EduGeek full time I had the following servers virtualised on our SAN running off Microsoft Virtual Server:

 

Sophos

WSUS

KS3 Testing

Secondary DNS\Domain services (I know there are no BDCs anymore, but the non of my virtualised servers held primary FSMO roles)

[ful56_uk]

Yeah same as us. 2 sans one sas for the vm machines one sata for data storage. 2 sans are connect within the San network with 2 switches for redunancy. Then four hosts. Only thing stored in the host is esx and a partition for iso files. The only server we don't run as a vm is the ts boxes and the vm management server for backups. Like you say some people don't make there dc's as vm.

[MACIT]

Well speaking out here we run our entire infrastructure on esx bare metal and cannot fault it. I can see the argument for not virtualising dc's but the advantages (instant restore if it all goes to hell, Ability to move an os off a host if needed, snapshoting) out weighs it in my view.

[Theblacksheep]

Hi all, I'm trying to consolidate our servers and trying to virtualize some server in our inventory to lessen some expenses and servers to the servers room. And I have no idea on what servers to virtualize.

 

 

Is it ok to virtualize:

 

1. DHCP server

2. Application server

3. Web server

4. Antivirus server

5.Domain Controller

6. Proxy server

 

Is it ok if this servers will be virtualized in just one physical server?

And are there any server in the list that cannot be virtualize because of performance issue?

 

 

Really need your help. Thanks.

 

at the least I'd leave the AV as physical....

[dirtydog]

we're about to virtualise a few more but our new physical DC has just been ordered

[theriver]

You might also wish to consider failover - if the physical host dies, you lose all of those services at once. While it might not be a probem for some services, it could cause problems for the entire network if the DHCP server vanishes . . . .

 

As with Dos_Box, I am not saying "don't do it", just saying "think about the day it all goes wrong". Because my friend, that day will come :-)

[cookie_monster]

We run all of those services except DHCP on Xenserver, we have three DC's one the FSMO role holder is on a good quality HP physical box. No particular reason that we decided not to run DHCP virtual it just happens to be the physical box.

We also have two virtual Citrix boxes now.

[localzuk]

Personally, if I was in the same situation, I'd virtualise all of them.

 

But I'd only do it if we have high availability failover between multiple physical hosts and redundant SANs to host it all on.

[DAckroyd]

Hi all, I'm trying to consolidate our servers and trying to virtualize some server in our inventory to lessen some expenses and servers to the servers room. And I have no idea on what servers to virtualize.

 

 

Is it ok to virtualize:

 

1. DHCP server

2. Application server

3. Web server

4. Antivirus server

5.Domain Controller

6. Proxy server

 

Is it ok if this servers will be virtualized in just one physical server?

And are there any server in the list that cannot be virtualize because of performance issue?

 

 

Really need your help. Thanks.

 

I would happily go virtual on all that lot but leaving a backup DC outside but I would look at more than one host. if you put all your servers onto one host and it goes pop for any reason then you're screwed

[p858snake]

If you virtualize your Domain Controller, just make sure the operating system running/managing your virtual machines isn't joined to the domain.

 

I remember reading somewhere (on here if I remember correctly) that someone did it and all worked fine till the physical server(/s) lost power and needed to be restarted....

[rh91uk]

We have virtualised the lot here - exchange servers, DC's etc. If you plan it well and have space for redundancy then you should be fine!

[cookie_monster]

Personally, if I was in the same situation, I'd virtualise all of them.

 

But I'd only do it if we have high availability failover between multiple physical hosts and redundant SANs to host it all on.

 

 

Budget is always a limiting factor we (IT and SMT) made the decision that a days downtime was preferable to tens of thousands of pounds of extra hardware so all of our kit is on next business day replacement. Our setup was recently tested when someone cut the power over a weekend and the UPS eventually failed, having the physical DC was a god send as we keep network documentation on there but it also allowed us to get DHCP, DNS and internet running while we figured out why the SAN wouldn't come back on (this could of been an issue even with a redundent SAN) we could also test AD integrity before powering up the other DC's. Our support company recommended that we do it this way for this reason and it helped in my opinion, it's also very little extra cost and DC's are easy to migrate when it come to hardware replacement time.

[DAckroyd]

we're about to virtualise a few more but our new physical DC has just been ordered

 

there's nothing stopping your virtualising that box a few months/years down the line and having it as an extra host for your vm's

[zag]

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?

[tmcd35]

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.

[DAckroyd]

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

[DAckroyd]

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)

[EduTech]

We have everything virtulised apart from the HOSTS ofcourse and the storage servers aswell as ISA.

 

James.

[DMcCoy]

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.

[MACIT]

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.

[tmcd35]

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.

[localzuk]

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!

[tmcd35]

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.