Server Virtualisation Project Proposal

[DMcCoy]

ESX = ESXi

 

ESX has NO* extra features over ESXi.

 

ESX will most likely not exist in the next major version, with ESXi being the only choice. *They are the same hypervisor, ESX just has a full linux console for management and agents where ESXi does not, this allows the only minor feature difference, serial port passthrough one ESX.

 

There is a *free* version of ESXi, but not ESX but they both have the same costs and licensing for their features.

[Duke]

The thing is... If you're really planning on virtualising heavily, what do you want to get out of it? I know several people are running the (free) ESXi for production use and are happy with it, but you're getting no automatic failover or redundancy. Pretty much our number one reason for virtualising is to maintain a high level of availability and improve disaster recovery. If you just have a couple of (free) ESXi boxes then all your eggs are in one basket and if that physical server falls over you've lost half your network with no way of bringing it back up automatically. On the flip side, if you have the paid-for version of ESX/ESXi and a cluster of hosts, VMware HA will bring VMs back up elsewhere if hardware fails, FT will do it with no downtime at all (some limitations though) and vMotion will let you migrate live hosts if you know you need to take hardware down.

 

I'm not saying ESXi (free) can't be a valid solution, and I guess it's still easier to bring a VM back up manually if it's stored on a SAN than having to replace and restore a physical server, but would those of you in schools who 'depend' on IT feel comfortable having a single server failure take down 10 different servers and you have to be around to manually bring it all back up?

 

Just a thought...

Chris

[teejay]

Yep, it's not difficult to do Duke, just a few clicks :-) There are 3 of us here who can do it, plus we can get in remotely if required.

When I was looking at this, I reviewed any incidents in the last 5 years where we'd had a server outage and not a single one would've been helped by using HA in the virtualisation software.

[Duke]

Cool, I know you've got a really good setup over there so I figured you'd have it all managed!

 

I reviewed any incidents in the last 5 years where we'd had a server outage and not a single one would've been helped by using HA in the virtualisation software.

 

Good way of looking at it, it's very tempting to get into the idea of 'ooh, but I could have this, and it would do that, and it'd solve this potential problem' but that can quickly get quite expensive...

[gshaw]

Personally I'm with Duke on this one, I've not even considered using the free version for production as I see one of the major virtualisation bonuses being the automatic failover and suchlike.

 

HA \ FT is one I always get the wrong way round, running the 2nd copy in the background of the VM probably won't help in most cases as it's the app that crashes rather than the OS but automatic failover to another host should the current one pop it's clogs is vital imo.

 

Auto patching sounds lovely and live migration again rather important. What gets me as always is the ripoff price for ongoing "support" which often seems to outgrow the initial purchase price Already have enough ongoing contracts without another one going in there!

[Duke]

FT is cool, but probably not something I'll use. You'll need a good network link between the two servers to keep them properly in sync, but it does potentially mean zero downtime. The only service I'd really like that on at the moment is Exchange... but Exchange requires at least 2 CPUs, and FT only works on single-CPU VMs!

 

I'm looking at a figure around £280 per-socket for 1 Year Gold Support on vSphere Enterprise, with £480 for the same on vCentre. Not cheap by any means, but not too ridiculous either.

 

Currently writing up my business proposal for our project, my head is a mess of server specs and VMware licensing...

Edited May 17, 2010 by Duke

[Tallwood_6]

If you can do without the storage vmotion then you could save yourself some money on vsphere advanced and vcenter foundation if your only likely to have a max of 3 hosts.

[RyTech]

Duke you seem like the man to talk to I was looking at the Dell PowerEdge M710 to combine four servers and was looking at running hyper v but seen it could be an issue with the 2003 server os's what would you recommend and could you maybe send me over the propsal you sent to the chap who made the thread, if you would nto mind my email address is ryanhamilton at hotmail dot com

 

Thanks

[Duke]

Duke you seem like the man to talk to I was looking at the Dell PowerEdge M710 to combine four servers and was looking at running hyper v but seen it could be an issue with the 2003 server os's what would you recommend and could you maybe send me over the propsal you sent to the chap who made the thread, if you would nto mind my email address is ryanhamilton at hotmail dot com

 

Cheers, although I think it's more luck than anything else sometimes.

 

Regarding the M710's - I take it you've already got the chassis and everything sorted? If not, any particular reason for going for a blade server? You do realise that the chassis would be a single point of failure in your virtual set up?

 

I'll email you the docs I've got, just bear in mind they're now from 2008, but they do provide a general buisness case for consolidated storage and virtualisation.

 

Cheers,

Chris

[burgemaster]

Incase you are interested,

 

We had a total of 12 servers. 7x tower servers ready for retirement, 2x 1U Dells as the DCs and 3 new Dell 2U dual CPU 16GB rack mounted servers.

 

All servers were running 2k3. We installed the 3 dells with windows 2008 R2 enterprise to be used as hosts for all the other servers. I installed MSVMM to help with the P2V conversions and then one by one over many months (during term time!) I converted the older servers one by one to virtual servers, 3 VMs on each host. The server rack in now empty and everything is running like a dream!.

The VHDs for the VMs are stored locally on each of the hosts as we cannot afford a SAN. the average CPU use of each host rarely goes over 10%!

 

With enterprise you are licensed for 4 VMs per host.I have had no trouble with the 7 VMs running server 2003 or any trouble with the NICs.

We already had 2k8 licensed so it didnt cost a penny.

 

We then purchased MSVMM as it made monitoring the VMs and Hosts a doddle. For a little extra we had DPM2010 and MSCCM included in a bundle licence, so the backup were sorted too!

 

Good luck!

Edited September 5, 2011 by burgemaster