RPMTECHNOLOGY
asked on
Urgent! MS Virtual Machine Server and DCs, need arguments against
Hi All,
Doing some contracting during a datacenter migration for a company and one of their plans is to move their 2 DCs off stand-alone servers to 2 instances running on Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.
I'm not a complete VMS expert but I do know that MS doesn't recommend this for a production environment. My gut says moving their DCs along with DNS and DHCP complately to VMS is a bad idea. My vote (even though I don't really have one since I just push the buttons) is to at least compromise and leave one DC physical.
I'm working along side their direct admins and most of them feel this is a bad idea as well but have been shot down repeatedly and told do it anyway. As you can guess morale is a problem at this point. There are no budget or space constraints. These folks has 300+ servers and they are getting back about 100 by rolling out VMS. For the life of me I can't figure out why they would be so against keeping a DC on it's own server.
I was able to get a meeting for tomorrow and could use some help with articulate arguments against putting EVERYTHING I mentioned to VMS.
Basically we are up against a senior admin who is "setting the new direction" and his word seems to be golden to management. As an "example" about his direction he also wants to DHCP the same VM DC's etc... He has no idea what he's doing.
Help! Thanks!
Doing some contracting during a datacenter migration for a company and one of their plans is to move their 2 DCs off stand-alone servers to 2 instances running on Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.
I'm not a complete VMS expert but I do know that MS doesn't recommend this for a production environment. My gut says moving their DCs along with DNS and DHCP complately to VMS is a bad idea. My vote (even though I don't really have one since I just push the buttons) is to at least compromise and leave one DC physical.
I'm working along side their direct admins and most of them feel this is a bad idea as well but have been shot down repeatedly and told do it anyway. As you can guess morale is a problem at this point. There are no budget or space constraints. These folks has 300+ servers and they are getting back about 100 by rolling out VMS. For the life of me I can't figure out why they would be so against keeping a DC on it's own server.
I was able to get a meeting for tomorrow and could use some help with articulate arguments against putting EVERYTHING I mentioned to VMS.
Basically we are up against a senior admin who is "setting the new direction" and his word seems to be golden to management. As an "example" about his direction he also wants to DHCP the same VM DC's etc... He has no idea what he's doing.
Help! Thanks!
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Virtual machines are a cool thing. I would distribute, distribute, distribute though. One DC per physical box. You definitely don't want all your DC's on a single VM box in different instances when a CPU dies or a chip goes bad. Yes the servers will have redundancy but not for everything.
ASKER
Had the meeting and presented great arguments backed up with data. They are still moving forward with the VMS plan. I'm going to wrap up today and walk away. Thanks Mattisflones for the link to the MS doc.
Anytime, sorry i couldnt present the big-NO paper...