Architecture of this server

[mirojr]

Ok currently

DL380 G5 5x 10k SAS 146gb drives, also getting some more memory to take up to 8gb

 

got 3com 4500g switches x2 and some baseline switches

 

About to order a ML115 with 4 500 gb HDDs and 8gb ram

 

And was going to order a qnap 439, but not too sure on this although storage in a rack would be nice

 

couple of boxes with linux on and also couple of boxes with lab servs on.

 

all server stuff is 2003 std but am going to upgrade to 2008 r2 which current server will run and ml115 will run.

 

Thanks

[Duke]

How much budget have you got for the new server and (potential) SAN/NAS?

[mirojr]

i have no figure. But the qnap being £800 and the server being £200, i would think something around that.

 

Plus all the parts i have bought another £500-1000

 

So small budget i.e i dont think boss would appreciate me putting a 2K storage item on his desk.

 

but if i was imperative we needed it he might go for it.

 

But with the way we have gone on i dont know if it is imperative.

 

:S

[Duke]

I think you're probably going to struggle with an enterprise solution on that budget for obvious reasons. If your backup/failsafe systems are limited already then as you say, even basic virtualisation may be of benefit. I see no issue with running a secondary DC and Linux Proxy on a basic ESXi host. Check how much CPU and RAM they're using, but it shouldn't be that high. It's always a good idea to keep your primary DC physical, regardless of your virtualisation setup.

 

The DL380 with SAS drives, decent CPU and 8GB RAM sounds like a good VM host (if the hardware is compatible) and you can run the VMs off the local disks for now. Like j17sparky said, use the new server as the main DC and file server. DC's shouldn't hit the disks much and file serving doesn't require that much authentication/CPU/RAM so the two roles should play nice on the new server.

 

I assume you're using 64-bit OSs on the servers or Enterprise editions of Windows Server so you can actually make use of the 8GB RAM?

 

Cheers,

Chris

[glennda]

a DL380 g5 will run esxi fine, i had one at my last place that had

5gb ram and happily ran 4 vm's without going above 50% total cpu, we have 3 here running KVM on Ubuntu which has 64gb ram and hosts 16 vm's!! and the total cpu usage is nothing!!

[DMcCoy]

It's worth noting that the ML115 will not do RAID with ESXi without an additional RAID card as the RAID on the Intel ICH10R has no driver support.

[Guest Guest]

It's worth noting that the ML115 will not do RAID with ESXi without an additional RAID card as the RAID on the Intel ICH10R has no driver support.

 

Worth looking at Citrix Xenserver then as it seems to have alot more driver support.

 

 

I see no issue with running a secondary DC and Linux Proxy on a basic ESXi host.

 

Just for comparison on a 4core single CPU xeon x3360 with 8gb ram we have;

 

Seconday DC

ISA2006

Openaccess WAP Endian router

Dansguardian Proxy

Moodle VLE

Intranet

 

CPU = 10%

RAM = 96% (and 3gb of that is the ISA box)

Edited March 1, 2010 by Guest

[mirojr]

 

The DL380 with SAS drives, decent CPU and 8GB RAM sounds like a good VM host (if the hardware is compatible) and you can run the VMs off the local disks for now. Like j17sparky said, use the new server as the main DC and file server. DC's shouldn't hit the disks much and file serving doesn't require that much authentication/CPU/RAM so the two roles should play nice on the new server.

 

I would presure that I would be aiming for raid 1+0 then on the DL380.

 

Shame I will lose lots of space, but then i will just have to move stuff about.

 

Why is it best practice to have DC on physical machine?

 

Thanks

[powdarrmonkey]

Why is it best practice to have DC on physical machine?

 

Because of clock skews, and the temptation to roll back snapshots. We have them on virtual machines quite happily though, YMMV.

[Duke]

I would presure that I would be aiming for raid 1+0 then on the DL380.

 

Shame I will lose lots of space, but then i will just have to move stuff about.

 

Why is it best practice to have DC on physical machine?

 

If the DL380 has 10k drives then RAID 1+0 may be overkill. You might get away with RAID5, it depends on what your disk IOPS requirements are.

 

Having virtual DCs is no problem, but you should keep at least one physical. powdarrmonkey highlighted a few reasons, but one of the main ones is keeping a DC and probably DNS available if your virtual machines go down. Much easier to try to get things back together if you've got AD and DNS available.

 

Chris

[mirojr]

ok.

 

Reason I thought it wouldnt matter if virtual or not is if one went down you would use the other, vice versa. Hence BDC.

 

I could understand if BOTH where on the same hardware.

 

Thanks

[Guest Guest]

Much easier to try to get things back together if you've got AD and DNS available.

 

Chris

 

But i like the challenge Memorising the IPs of all your servers and most of your switches is great fun

 

We have everything virtualised. Not because we want to, or becauseits best pracitice. But because we cant afford to have a virtual cluster, SANs, and a couple of physicals to augment.

[Duke]

We have everything virtualised. Not because we want to, or becauseits best pracitice. But because we cant afford to have a virtual cluster, SANs, and a couple of physicals to augment.

 

Fair enough, you've got to go for what's going to work for you!

 

Lots of mixed opinions on the net about what's best, although this makes for some interesting reading to think about when virtualising DCs.