Virtualisation tutorial

[cookie_monster]

There's a good Hyper-V article here.

 

Resource Allocation in Hyper-V (Part 1)

[vikpaw]

You need to remember Hyper-V isn't quiet as bare metal as ESX. It's a little more like Xen on Linux. It needs a primary copy of Windows to run with. So you have the overheads associated with running an additional copy of Windows. Maybe less than the 1Gb I quoted above - maybe 256mb - but essentially you need ram for all your VM's and the host.

 

There's a good Hyper-V article here.

 

Resource Allocation in Hyper-V (Part 1)

 

@tmcd35 - does that include the new standalone version? i'm liking it less and less now.

 

i think the referenced article might be running on an older version where you still have to have a core SVR install.

 

i was under the impression the standalone is just bare metal and runs from a command prompt, but am happy to be corrected as i'm not happy about using a Microsoft OS as a host for other machines just because of all the patching that is required. i haven't had time to investigate more yet as other projects taking precedence.

[cookie_monster]

@tmcd35 - does that include the new standalone version? i'm liking it less and less now.

 

i think the referenced article might be running on an older version where you still have to have a core SVR install.

 

i was under the impression the standalone is just bare metal and runs from a command prompt, but am happy to be corrected as i'm not happy about using a Microsoft OS as a host for other machines just because of all the patching that is required. i haven't had time to investigate more yet as other projects taking precedence.

 

 

 

It's worth noting that Hyper-V isn't Windows based and is a purpose built OS from the ground up. It's only required one security patch so far.

 

Microsoft Hyper-V gets its first security patch | Virtualization - InfoWorld

 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS10-010.mspx

 

I'm not supporting Hyper-V in any way (I'm a Xenserver user) just pointing out the differences.

Edited February 22, 2010 by cookie_monster

[Soulfish]

That's a useful Heads UP, i'm evaluating Hyper-V at the moment. I was under the impression that the stand-alone, bare metal version didn't have any major overhead....?

 

I also, wasn't aware that it wont do smart memory management. I assumed they all do that. Luckily our blades are RAM rich, but i'm starting to rethink and go down the ESXi route, just need to fine a decent GUI based manager. Ideally a free one...i think there's a thread on that somewhere.

 

XenServer is also unable to overcommit memory at the moment. The next release (previews are in March I believe) has it, but until then I think VMWare are the only "enterprise" solutions that have memory overcommit.

[tmcd35]

It's worth noting that Hyper-V isn't Windows based and is a purpose built OS from the ground up. It's only required one security patch so far.

 

 

Although it is a bare metal hypervisor - and thus a seperate OS in it's own right - however I was under the impression it was similar to Xen which requires an OS install in Dom-0(?) for some device drivers and system management. Hyper-V requires a Windows host install for the same reason, even if it is just Windows Server Core, I believe thats what the freebie download comes with. This basic Windows host OS install will then require some CPU and memory resources.

 

 

I skimmed through the first article you linked to. Very interesting, it's got me re-thinking my Hyper-V plans. It mentions known compatibility issues with running Hyper-V on a domain controller. Do I keep the hyper-v servers and the NAS/SAN off the domain, or do I make the NAS/SAN box a domain controller for hyper-v to authenticate against? Or do I bite the bullet and run a seperate dedicated DC server?

 

Wish I'd found out about ESXi before starting down the Hyper-V route now. The whole reason for wanting to use Hyper-V was purely not being able to afford ESX!

[cookie_monster]

I think some people run a seperate Hyper-V domain or a Hyper-V workgroup. I've only read that as we use Xenserver here and I don't have much Hyper-v experience.

[vikpaw]

What is Hyper-V Server and is it also affected by this vulnerability?

Microsoft Hyper-V Server is a stand-alone product that provides a reliable and optimized virtualization solution enabling organizations to improve server utilization and reduce costs. Since Hyper-V Server is a dedicated stand-alone product, which contains only the Windows Hypervisor, Windows Server driver model and virtualization components, it provides a small footprint and minimal overhead.

 

Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008, Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 Service Pack 2 and Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 are affected by this vulnerability and the Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 updates respectively must be applied to help remedy this vulnerability. Customers that have Automatic Updates enabled will automatically be offered these updates for installation.

 

It even affects the stand-alone!!

You know what i say:

POO!!

[cookie_monster]

Yes but it's only a DOS vuln and can only be exploited by a localy logged on user. So at least that buys some time for testing and you can wait untill a maintenence gap.

[Jawloms]

Just to dig up a slightly old thread here, I have a couple of questions......

 

We currently have 2 IBM BladeCentres with a bunch of servers in each. They won't run Windows Server 2008 as IBM don't do the drivers for the HDs. The servers themselves have 4GB RAM, 2 dual core Xeons at 3GHz and whatever HD I put in. What I was wondering was could I install Server 2003 on one (with mirrored disks for a bit of redundancy), then install VM Ware on it and set up 2 virtual servers on it. This way I can get server 2008 on as a DC and use all the group policies I am going to need to properly administer Windows 7, and another to do other basic functions like anti-virus or print or whatever. If this could work then I could do the same on another blade to have a second DC running Server 2008. Is it safe to have your only DC's virtualised?

 

The kit is getting on a bit, but of course theirs little money to replace them, and I don't know if it's powerful enough, but then again a DC doesn't take a massive amount of resources for most of the time, just first thing in the morning and at the beginning of each lesson. I'm not proposing to install Exchange or SIMS on a virtualised server.

 

Other than perhaps needing to add more RAM, would/could this work?

 

Thank you

 

Stuart

[alan-d]

I'm still a noob over virtualisation but your plan above looks sound with the exception of virtualising both DCs. There are arguments for and against this but I prefer the option of keeping one DC on a physical machine and virtualising the other. The reasoning for this is in the event of a power failure for example when all the machines go off, the hosts still have a DC to refer to when they come back on line.

 

Like I say, arguments for and against but that would be my preference.

[sister_annex]

Why not install VMWare ESXi onto your blades, saves on a licence, it's very easy to configure and will run with the hardware you have very easily. What I will say is to get get the most out of your virtual machines is the more RAM the better.

 

As for the DC's we currently have 40 virtual machines inc. 5 DCs virtualised on 8 Physical Hosts running ESX4. We have had no issues (So Far) any power problems have usually been averted by a few powerful UPS units.

 

If you want any more info let me know

 

Mark

[vikpaw]

Just go back a step. You want to install Windows 2003 server on the blade and then VMWare on top? Is that right?

 

The only VMWare that you can add would be something like VMWare Server, which out of the family is a really inferior Virtualisation product. It wont run as efficiently as one of the other flavors, like ESXi or full ESX. For a start the base server will eat up RAM and need patching / looking after. On top of that VMWare Server only allows you 1 snapshot, so that's a big benefit drowned.

 

We have an IBM blade centre too, but luckily it support 2008. I'm running VMWare Server on 2k3 and 2k8, and everytime i want a snapshot, i end up cloning the whole VM. I'm just waiting for the blade control software to be installed on a separate machine then we are going to blow away the blades and reinstall with Hyper-V.

 

I'd love it to be VMWare Sphere and ESX but we simply can't afford it

 

Isn't there something you can do with the hard drives, upgrade / replace, it's worth it. If you go down the VM route, get all the features and make it scalable too. ESXi doesn't allow you the fancy bits, no sharing resources, high availability, easy VM management, but would still be a step in the right direction.

[Jawloms]

Just go back a step. You want to install Windows 2003 server on the blade and then VMWare on top? Is that right?

 

Yes, but only because I didn't know about VMWare ESXi as I'd never looked at virtualisation before. I have now installed ESXi and is running quite nicely. The only thing 2008 doesn't seem to like when installing straight on to the blade is the HD controller, which would mean replacing expensive bits, and as all I want the servers to do is sit there and be DC's and worrying about the new groupl policies, I'm hoping that two blades (thereby obviously retaining the critical 2 DC's) running ESXi and then Server 2008 on the top will be fine. I can then leave the rest of the blades doing what they do (Exchange, SQL, Backup, etc) on Server 2003. This way the school (which is being BSF'd, unless the new government stop it) don't have to spend money on new servers which will be binned in a couple of years time, just a few quid on a bit of memory. Does this sound plausible?

 

Stuart

[SYNACK]

Does this sound plausible?

 

Sounds like a good sensible solution to me, should work fine.

[vikpaw]

Yep, it's a good idea.

 

We are (were?) on the Hyper-V track, but yesterday i managed to get more discussion about VMWare tabled.

 

You may be interested in the following info i researched yesterday:

 

VMWare offer small businesses a nice little package called Essentials, which licences you for up to 3 physical hosts (max. 2 procs/up to 6 cores each), with ESX or ESXi, plus the vCenter management software. This is an awesome deal, but doesn't have the more advanced features that you get with the full vSphere kit. It only costs $499 until first week of June (half price!).

 

There is an essentials plus package which adds High Availability and Data Recovery, but also bumps the price to $3500 ish. Still an awesome deal.

 

VMware Online Store - Buy VMware vSphere Essentials Bundle for Server Consolidation

 

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware-vSphere-4-Essentials-Editions-DS-EN.pdf

 

 

The only problem is that it's a fixed size package and doesn't allow for expansion, if you want to go full business edition, then you'd need to relicence everything but it's a good way to get in on the action on a small scale for a fixed number of hosts.

 

The only other thing is the basic package mentions 1 year licence so i don't know if you need to renew that, i don't think so. I'm also not sure about if it has all features like the resource pooling etc, i think that's as standard though. It doesn't however have the hot add feature which lets you increase RAM etc on the fly.

 

If we weren't limited for future expansion we'd be going for that. So for now, we've got our IBM guys giving us a quote for Advanced Sphere to go with the new blades we're getting.

[Theblacksheep]

Get used to ESXi.....

 

 

looks like vmware server is on its way out:

 

VMSA-2010-0007.1

 

virtualization.info | VMware Server to be discontinued by June 2011?

[vikpaw]

ESXi is pretty good, haven't used it much, but Server just runs slow, and relies on the host OS too much.

We just got the go ahead for VMWARE - Hoorah :)

Just negotiating now, and know this folks, it is expensive, but there is lots of room for moving on prices, the academic pricing is really good, and then you can haggle the hell out of support costs, and costs overall.

We got a quote down by nearly 50%, just double checking all part codes to be sure it's as good as it looks.

VMWare here we come

[SimonF]

ESXi is Vmware? ESX is the hypervisor (the i just means it integrated) - VSphere from Vmware is all the clever stuff on top which you have to pay for.