New Network Infrastructure

[Podium]

We have been running CC3 in our school for around 7 years now, but we have now decided its time to go our own way.

 

With CC3, we had the one big server that did everything (700+ users and 250 workstations) and am now looking to install a vanilla 2008r2 server infrastructure with spreading the load over multiple servers. Obviously you have the Domain Controller but after that how would you split the tasks over other servers e.g. 1 for user files, 1 for application, 1 shared folder etc.

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[IrritableTech]

We have virtual servers. Over three hosts we have three domain controllers, of which one serves user files, and another serves departmental shares. We have one print server, one shared programs server, one security server (WSUS and AV), one web server (moodle and xibo), one sims server and a test sharpoint 2010 server.

 

We've kept as much separate as was possible with the resources of the physical hosts. Then for example if a buggy printer drive chokes, it doesn't take anything else down.

 

If that's any help...

[mrbios]

Domain controllers

File server

Application servers

Terminal Servers

Web servers

Deployment server

Print Server

Exchange server

Linux Proxies

ISA Server

 

That's pretty much the way my VMs are split up. Ideally put as few tasks per windows install as possible, it means less hassle when you need to do restarts or maintenance. Also means if something goes tits up it's only one service that you lose, for example we have 8 domain controllers serving 5 separate buildings (1 for infrastructure and one specifically to us in IT and one for wireless hence more than one per building) and everything is running as a VM, if anything dies including the hosts it's easily less then a single lessons downtime.

[Podium]

So running the servers as VM's, is that simply a cost saving exercise or is there a distinct advantage to running each task on dedicated hardware?

[localzuk]

So running the servers as VM's, is that simply a cost saving exercise or is there a distinct advantage to running each task on dedicated hardware?

 

Virtual servers have multiple advantages:

 

1. Separation of roles

2. Reduction of underutilised hardware

3. Functions are separate from hardware - meaning that upgrades are 10 minutes work rather than 10 hours.

4. Reduced power consumption

5. Improved resilience (3 servers each specced with extra capacity means you can transfer an entire server's VMs to the other 2 in a few minutes if the hardware fails).

6. Expansion is as easy as buying a new box and sticking more VMs on it

 

There are probably more too.

[mrbios]

As localz says really, can't think of anything to add to that list. Currently we're in a position where by if one our physical servers died, vmware high availability would automatically restart the VMs on another host without us needing to interact with it in any way, that can go one further with things like fault tolerance etc so that the machines don't even need to reboot. To achieve this though all your VMs need to be hosted on storage accessible by all hosts such as an iSCSI SAN or similar.

 

Also should add that i can't recommend vmware enough! It's expensive but a very valuable and reliable system, i still consider hyper-v as half the product VMware is, and xen isn't anywhere near as good.

Edited January 23, 2012 by mrbios

[maark]

Have not tried vmware but had no problems with hyper v -simple to setup yourself and very cheap if you have a MS schools agreement.

[gshaw]

Same as above really, VMWare hosts with everything split out...

 

- 2 x DCs on 2008 R2

- file servers, split up so departmental shares will be on a separate VM to user shares... spreads the load out

- management server (AV console, WSUS, monitoring tools etc)

- print server

- remote access server

- SCCM server (best thing you can do to improve management of your PCs imo)

- SQL server for MIS

- Exchange for staff (students on Live@Edu)

 

Then a couple of Linux LAMP servers for open source products we're either using or testing (MRBS, Xerte etc)

 

The next version of Hyper-V could make the hypervisor battle very interesting indeed but at the present time vSphere all the way if you can

[Podium]

I had looked at VMware but the cost just pushed the budget too far which makes Hyper-V the more reasonable solution. I have always shied away from using virtual machines because of the idea of one machine failing taking down multiple operations, as well as Microsoft's /sarcasmon perfectly straightforward licensing structure /sarcasmoff but it does seem to be a genuine option particularly for the lesser used functions.

[mrbios]

Did you get academic license quotes for vmware or look at the prices online? As academic is way cheaper than you'll find online. If you did and it was still too expensive then:

 

With virtualisation the idea is to not leave yourself in a position where by one failing = operations down, there's a lot of failover techniques available which are worth investigating and gaining a full understanding of before you dive in

[IrritableTech]

I looked at VMware and found it too expensive also. Especially if you wanted to break the three server barrier.

 

Generally I found

VMWare - costly

HyperV - cheap

XenServer - free - or at least free for everything we wanted.

 

If I were to do it again today... I might well go HyperV now it's been used for a while.

[mrbios]

I looked at VMware and found it too expensive also. Especially if you wanted to break the three server barrier.

 

Generally I found

VMWare - costly

HyperV - cheap

XenServer - free - or at least free for everything we wanted.

 

If I were to do it again today... I might well go HyperV now it's been used for a while.

 

It's be interesting to break the 3 down in to features and see what each can do when compared side by side. As i consider, depending on requirements, vmware to be an easily justifiable cost.

 

Tried to find an example but the only one i could find is a pretty poor example as it's straight from vmware lol but here it is anyway: VMware vSphere Hypervisor: Compare ESX with Microsoft Hyper-V & Citrix Xen Server Even though it's quite obviously biased, it raises some good points as to what you miss out on. You get what you pay for basically, which while not a bad thing if you don't need the features, I've found those features to be very valuable.

[SimonF]

Reading through, I can see some folks are well versed in virtualisation - and others are still a little new to all this. I have created a new website which newbies may find useful in explaining some key technologies - like server virtualisation. Feel free to have a browse. For some stuff on server virtualisation specifically - go here. Server Virtualisation | 2DeCipher - Technology Made Simple

[Podium]

Bit of an update.

 

I have managed to persuade the Head to pay for a HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Dual Xeon E5620 with 5 x 450GB 10K drives and 40GB RAM. We do already have a relatively new HP DL360 G7 which is only being used as a Remote WebApp machine at the moment. I have been following the thread School Server and infrastructure revamp but I simply do not have the budget for what they are suggesting.

 

What would the advice be on how utilise the two servers I have. Perhaps use the DL360 as the DC with the DL380 as the file server and virtualise the other functions on to it or the DL380 as the DC and file server and DL360 doing the rest?

 

Thank you for the advice given so far by the way.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Podium

[MrWu]

Sorry double posted in 2 threads!

 

Hi Guys,

 

Been slowed under but thought i will do an update so far...

 

Over Feb half term we have:

 

Installed DPM 2010, linked to 12TB SAN and the LTO autochanger,backing up all our Exchange,SQL and fileservers nicely,with 5TB to spare.

 

Installed WSUS and impero on Hyper V

 

Forefront installed on all servers, replacing Sophos and MSE (sometimes even installed together!) will manage this under SCCM install...on the to do list

 

All servers on UPS, exchange and DC off the cheapie B&Q powerstrip!

 

MDT 2010 built, hopefully to integrate into DMS Netflow AD managment Software.

 

Still documenting the mish mash of fibre and copper interconnects, trying to get the network off daisy chaining and more of a star layout from the core switch.

 

I have now been allocated £34k for servers now, so still looking at solutions, one of which is the intel modular server:

 

Intel® Modular Server

 

Have been quoted one of these with 6 server modules, 4 with dual Hex Core Xeon with 48gb... 2 with single Hex Core with 24Gb, 4x300gb 15k SAS and 10x900gb 10k SAS..for around £25k. I have seen a school with this and feedback have been good,my only concern is the disk space, the school uses 3tb of data already, so might convert the DL 380 G7 i have into a fileserver and bond the 4 nics together, i could build a couple of these if needed. Incidently, if you guys virtualise fileservers, do you use fixed disk or passthrough for performance?

 

Still looking at the SAN and DL380 VM host option though, although the intel multiflex does look quite tidy.

 

Oh i have to get all this revamped with the whole school wireless by end of summer 2012!

Edited February 18, 2012 by MrWu

[gshaw]

Personally I'd take separate boxes over a blade system any day, also saves you being tied down to the 2.5" disks used in the Intel server

[glennda]

I looked at VMware and found it too expensive also. Especially if you wanted to break the three server barrier.

 

Generally I found

VMWare - costly

HyperV - cheap

XenServer - free - or at least free for everything we wanted.

 

If I were to do it again today... I might well go HyperV now it's been used for a while.

 

Linux KVM - Similar in features to XenServer and with add-on's (also free) does most of the things required such as HA, Live Migration etc.

 

Personally I would look at the DL360's

 

Toby