Hyper-V or VMWARE in Small Business/Development Environment?
We are currently looking to remodel our server environment.
Currently we have a recently installed Windows 2008 Server (x64). Intel Quad processor with 4GB RAM and two sets of 1TB Raid 1 SATA Disk arrays. Currently it is only functioning as a Files server, print server, dns,dhcp and primary domain controller. This server does not have hardly any load.
We have a number of Windows 2003 and 2000 Servers with various configurations to support custom software applications for our clinets. We are not a big company and only employ 6 people but we currently have about 12 servers of various ages which are more regularly failing due to the aging of the equipment.
What I would like to do is consolidate down to three servers.
Server 1) Current new domain controller running 2008 Server and to add either Vmware Server or Hyper-V Role so that this system can run two additional servers (One for Sugar-CRM which is windows 2003 with IIS and MySQL Server and One for our inhouse ITSM Solution which is running Windows 2003 Server with our ITSM software on IIS with MS SQL Sever 2005)
Server 2) Build a new server (similar or more powerful than Server 1) to run virtual machines one for each of our current clients. I was thinking of using Windows 2008 with either VMWare or Hyper-V Role installed and then build a library of Virual Machines, one for each of our customers. This server would also be a backup domain controller.
Server 3) Retain our Linux Mail Server (SMB Server) which has provided us with faultless operation for over 7 years intsalled on the newest retired server.
I have done some intital investigation on buting either Hyper-v or VMWare on our current dom ain controller and have come accross some issues:
1) Hyper-V Role will not install - Saya that it cannot install on the version of Windows 2008 server. Does anyone know why this would be the case as the machine is very new and has the x64 bit version installed?
2) I downloaded the VMWare Server 2.0 and it gives a warning when you try to install so I aborted the process.
Can anyone advise why I cannot install the Hyper-V or give any advise on a better way of doing this without rebuilding the primary Domain Controller
Currently we have a recently installed Windows 2008 Server (x64). Intel Quad processor with 4GB RAM and two sets of 1TB Raid 1 SATA Disk arrays. Currently it is only functioning as a Files server, print server, dns,dhcp and primary domain controller. This server does not have hardly any load.
We have a number of Windows 2003 and 2000 Servers with various configurations to support custom software applications for our clinets. We are not a big company and only employ 6 people but we currently have about 12 servers of various ages which are more regularly failing due to the aging of the equipment.
What I would like to do is consolidate down to three servers.
Server 1) Current new domain controller running 2008 Server and to add either Vmware Server or Hyper-V Role so that this system can run two additional servers (One for Sugar-CRM which is windows 2003 with IIS and MySQL Server and One for our inhouse ITSM Solution which is running Windows 2003 Server with our ITSM software on IIS with MS SQL Sever 2005)
Server 2) Build a new server (similar or more powerful than Server 1) to run virtual machines one for each of our current clients. I was thinking of using Windows 2008 with either VMWare or Hyper-V Role installed and then build a library of Virual Machines, one for each of our customers. This server would also be a backup domain controller.
Server 3) Retain our Linux Mail Server (SMB Server) which has provided us with faultless operation for over 7 years intsalled on the newest retired server.
I have done some intital investigation on buting either Hyper-v or VMWare on our current dom ain controller and have come accross some issues:
1) Hyper-V Role will not install - Saya that it cannot install on the version of Windows 2008 server. Does anyone know why this would be the case as the machine is very new and has the x64 bit version installed?
2) I downloaded the VMWare Server 2.0 and it gives a warning when you try to install so I aborted the process.
Can anyone advise why I cannot install the Hyper-V or give any advise on a better way of doing this without rebuilding the primary Domain Controller
I agree with bahnu. Have as less applications as possible on a DC. BUT if you have a DC for as less people and network you describe and this hardware (quad proc) you could consider (costs wise) to put multiple applications on the server (like SBS). You could go for two "simple" hardware servers for your DC and Mail server, and a bigger one to host your virtuals. Keep in mind, if you're hardware fails and the server goes down, the virtuals will go down. If you want to have more reliability you want more servers to host your virtuals (then a product like vmware ESX server will do the job).
I suggest the following:
Server 1 = ESXi running VMs for domain controller (doing DNS, DHCP, Global Catalog, etc), OpenFiler for file serving, and host P2V VMs (Windows 2000/2003)
Server 2 = ESXi running VMs for domain controller (secondary DNS, DHCP failover, etc) and host remaining P2V VMs (Windows 2000/2003)
Server 1 = ESXi running VMs for domain controller (doing DNS, DHCP, Global Catalog, etc), OpenFiler for file serving, and host P2V VMs (Windows 2000/2003)
Server 2 = ESXi running VMs for domain controller (secondary DNS, DHCP failover, etc) and host remaining P2V VMs (Windows 2000/2003)
Server 3 = Linux Mail Server
You may need to look at upping the hardware resources if you're considering consolidating 12 across two physical servers.
Because your Server 1 is already a production server, running as a DC, print server, file server, it's easier to leave it as is.
Your Server2 is a better candidate for hosting VMs, so long as your requirements for each server that you're P2Ving are met (processor, memory, network).
Server2 should be spec'ed as follows:
2 Intel Quadcore
8-16GB RAM
4-8 Gigabit NICs
1 TB storage (RAID5 + global hot spare) - this depends on your storage requirements
You may then build a VM that will be a backup domain controller (Secondary DNS, DHCP failover, Global Catalog, some FSMO roles, etc). This server should be adequate to hosting all your Windows 2000 and 2003 servers that you'll be P2Ving or replacing with a VM counterpart.
It's understandable that your Server1 may seem like a waste of resources if it's left the way it is, but take that into consideration that it supports several roles - DC, Print, File serving, etc - Increase the memory to say 8-16GB and increase the NIC count, have a backup and restore plan in place (Image level backups of your host and VMs, file level backups of your data, etc), and you'll have less of a mess to cleanup if the server goes up in flames. One of the benefits of having VMs is their portability across hetergenous hardware.
You may need to look at upping the hardware resources if you're considering consolidating 12 across two physical servers.
Because your Server 1 is already a production server, running as a DC, print server, file server, it's easier to leave it as is.
Your Server2 is a better candidate for hosting VMs, so long as your requirements for each server that you're P2Ving are met (processor, memory, network).
Server2 should be spec'ed as follows:
2 Intel Quadcore
8-16GB RAM
4-8 Gigabit NICs
1 TB storage (RAID5 + global hot spare) - this depends on your storage requirements
You may then build a VM that will be a backup domain controller (Secondary DNS, DHCP failover, Global Catalog, some FSMO roles, etc). This server should be adequate to hosting all your Windows 2000 and 2003 servers that you'll be P2Ving or replacing with a VM counterpart.
It's understandable that your Server1 may seem like a waste of resources if it's left the way it is, but take that into consideration that it supports several roles - DC, Print, File serving, etc - Increase the memory to say 8-16GB and increase the NIC count, have a backup and restore plan in place (Image level backups of your host and VMs, file level backups of your data, etc), and you'll have less of a mess to cleanup if the server goes up in flames. One of the benefits of having VMs is their portability across hetergenous hardware.
In order for you to get both your Server1 and Server2 to run ESXi requires a lot of work because you have to move off all roles off Server1, install ESXi, provision VMs for their roles (DC, print server, file server, etc), and move those resources back from Server2. That's why I say it's easier to keep Server1 as it is. Yes you may consider running Hyper-V or VMware Server (1.x or 2.x). Just make sure to enough resources to run those VMs and keep that get-out-of-rock-and-hard-p
ASKER
Hi bhanukir7, aldanch & bleeuwen, Thanks for all your comments. Very Interesting and useful coments.
My Server 1, although does all these tasks, sits at idle unless starting up. Currently performance is not a real issue. We have 6 employees and generally only three in the office at one time due to working at clients sites. It is just we have a number of applications we support which need to be installed on a seperate machine to effectively replicate the client deployment/IIS environment. We have two corporate apps, which are Sugar-CRM (using IIS and MySQL) and Infra ITSM (using IIS and MS SQL2005)applications both with light load. The rest are client apps we support. They are only spasmotically used, maybe each for 1/2 a day each week, which I think will really suit virtualisation. We can even leave the VM deactivated until required.
Servers 1: The Primary DC usage does not exceed 10% over the past week and current peak memory usage is around 800MB and it has 4 GB which I may increase to 8 GB as this is a cheap upgrade. From commments it is more just good practice to not put Hyper-V on the PDC. I would at least like to install it so we can untilse it in an emergency if Server 2 goes down by using the backup VM's.
Server 2: Install W2008 Server and Backup DC, DNS, DHCP & Print and Install Hyper-V Role with most of our VM's. We will backup the VM's to Server One Each Night. Most probably use an intel server board with 2 CPU Sockets but only install One Quad Processor to Start With and 8GB RAM. Will Use RAID 1 Disks 2 x 500GB for the OS, Paging & File Backup and 2 x 1TB for the VM's.
Network traffic between the servers is pretty low. Up until a month ago we had a 10/100 Switch. Only repleaced it as fan in it died and it was overheating. Now have a Netgear 1000/100/10 switch. Will ensure two 1GB NICS are in each server for redundancy. Most probably assign one to the native OS and one to the VM's collectively and see how we go. Always add another later if necessary.
I take it, that apart from good practice and performance their is no technical reason that Hyper-V role cannot be installed on a Windows 2008 x64 Domain Controller Server?
What I want to achieve is that if either server goes down we can limp along with the other until we can get it repaired and/or replaced.
Also what are the pros and cons of using VMWARE Server 2.0 over Hyper-V Role? Does Vmware 2.0 have any issues installing on Winodws 2008 Server x64domain controllers?
We would not consider the use of VMWARE ESXi of a Core Hyper-V install due to our budget constraints and don't really have the time to rebuild our current Server 1 either.
Look forward to everyones comments.... Thanks.
My Server 1, although does all these tasks, sits at idle unless starting up. Currently performance is not a real issue. We have 6 employees and generally only three in the office at one time due to working at clients sites. It is just we have a number of applications we support which need to be installed on a seperate machine to effectively replicate the client deployment/IIS environment. We have two corporate apps, which are Sugar-CRM (using IIS and MySQL) and Infra ITSM (using IIS and MS SQL2005)applications both with light load. The rest are client apps we support. They are only spasmotically used, maybe each for 1/2 a day each week, which I think will really suit virtualisation. We can even leave the VM deactivated until required.
Servers 1: The Primary DC usage does not exceed 10% over the past week and current peak memory usage is around 800MB and it has 4 GB which I may increase to 8 GB as this is a cheap upgrade. From commments it is more just good practice to not put Hyper-V on the PDC. I would at least like to install it so we can untilse it in an emergency if Server 2 goes down by using the backup VM's.
Server 2: Install W2008 Server and Backup DC, DNS, DHCP & Print and Install Hyper-V Role with most of our VM's. We will backup the VM's to Server One Each Night. Most probably use an intel server board with 2 CPU Sockets but only install One Quad Processor to Start With and 8GB RAM. Will Use RAID 1 Disks 2 x 500GB for the OS, Paging & File Backup and 2 x 1TB for the VM's.
Network traffic between the servers is pretty low. Up until a month ago we had a 10/100 Switch. Only repleaced it as fan in it died and it was overheating. Now have a Netgear 1000/100/10 switch. Will ensure two 1GB NICS are in each server for redundancy. Most probably assign one to the native OS and one to the VM's collectively and see how we go. Always add another later if necessary.
I take it, that apart from good practice and performance their is no technical reason that Hyper-V role cannot be installed on a Windows 2008 x64 Domain Controller Server?
What I want to achieve is that if either server goes down we can limp along with the other until we can get it repaired and/or replaced.
Also what are the pros and cons of using VMWARE Server 2.0 over Hyper-V Role? Does Vmware 2.0 have any issues installing on Winodws 2008 Server x64domain controllers?
We would not consider the use of VMWARE ESXi of a Core Hyper-V install due to our budget constraints and don't really have the time to rebuild our current Server 1 either.
Look forward to everyones comments.... Thanks.
hi,
the plan of adding hyper-v role to the DC as a standby is fine. And as you say that the current number of users and the usage of the DC is low, no issues in adding hyper-v role to the DC and bring up VMs in case of server 2 going down.
With current roles of the VMs which as per your update seem to be less demanding, no issues in going ahead with your plan.
As far as running vmware server on a Hyper-v Server i think there would be conflicts with the virtualization aspects and might impact your Hyper-v performance.
so not a good thing to have hyper-v and VMware server on the same machine. unless you want VMs created in VMware server and Hyper-v
last but not the least if you have a windows 2008 Enterprise license you can use that license for four Virtual machines. i.e. one Windows 2008 Enterprise license entitles you to a total of 5 windows 2008 license 1 physical 4 virtual.
if you go for ESXi then you would have that advantage as, MS does not yet certify/support VMs running on Vmware products.
hope that takes out ESXi out of contention altogether.
bhanu
the plan of adding hyper-v role to the DC as a standby is fine. And as you say that the current number of users and the usage of the DC is low, no issues in adding hyper-v role to the DC and bring up VMs in case of server 2 going down.
With current roles of the VMs which as per your update seem to be less demanding, no issues in going ahead with your plan.
As far as running vmware server on a Hyper-v Server i think there would be conflicts with the virtualization aspects and might impact your Hyper-v performance.
so not a good thing to have hyper-v and VMware server on the same machine. unless you want VMs created in VMware server and Hyper-v
last but not the least if you have a windows 2008 Enterprise license you can use that license for four Virtual machines. i.e. one Windows 2008 Enterprise license entitles you to a total of 5 windows 2008 license 1 physical 4 virtual.
if you go for ESXi then you would have that advantage as, MS does not yet certify/support VMs running on Vmware products.
hope that takes out ESXi out of contention altogether.
bhanu
Either vendor will work, however, consider using one or the other (not Hyper-V on one server and VMware Server on the other) to keep it simple - for backups, moving VMs from one server to the other in case of host failure (manual process or scripted). ESXi is free as well as
VMware has a mature product in the virtualization arena, which is why many companies have gone to them. However, it still comes down to a matter of preference. Hyper-V may be a freshmen in virtualization, but that doesn't mean that it can't provide you with what you need.
Microsoft has since changed their licensing agreement (since Sept 2008) regarding running Windows on VMware (and other virtualization vendors - Citrix Xen, Virtual Iron, Sun VirtualBox), so not only can you run Windows on any virtual platform, you're also able to get support from Microsoft for those VMs. Enterprise will still get you 4 virtual instances (plus 1 physical) and Datacenter unlimited.
VMware has a mature product in the virtualization arena, which is why many companies have gone to them. However, it still comes down to a matter of preference. Hyper-V may be a freshmen in virtualization, but that doesn't mean that it can't provide you with what you need.
Microsoft has since changed their licensing agreement (since Sept 2008) regarding running Windows on VMware (and other virtualization vendors - Citrix Xen, Virtual Iron, Sun VirtualBox), so not only can you run Windows on any virtual platform, you're also able to get support from Microsoft for those VMs. Enterprise will still get you 4 virtual instances (plus 1 physical) and Datacenter unlimited.
ASKER
Hi aldanch and bhanukir7,
Thanks for the comments. I thought I would try an experiment using Hyper-V. I installed this on Server 1 with updates.
I currently have two issues from this:
1. DHCP stopped working. It seems Hyper-V creates a virtual network adapter as well as retaining the native adapter but removes IPv4 from the native adapter. I have solved this with adding another NIC so now have two physical adapters and one virtual adapter.
2. When I install Windows 2003 Server (SP1) as a guest operating system on a new VM it does not recognise any network adapters. Also cannot install the Integration Services as it says the OS is not of a high enough service pack. Now need to burn a CD sith the OS's latest service packs.
I managed to move a VM created on PC Virtual Server2007 to Hyper-V but from the process I believe you cannot move it back. Is that correct?
Would VMWARE be easier to impliment....as I seem to be taking two steps forward and 1.5 back on each attempt.
Appreciate your comments.
Aldanch: you say ESXi is also free. where do I dowload it from?
Thanks
Thanks for the comments. I thought I would try an experiment using Hyper-V. I installed this on Server 1 with updates.
I currently have two issues from this:
1. DHCP stopped working. It seems Hyper-V creates a virtual network adapter as well as retaining the native adapter but removes IPv4 from the native adapter. I have solved this with adding another NIC so now have two physical adapters and one virtual adapter.
2. When I install Windows 2003 Server (SP1) as a guest operating system on a new VM it does not recognise any network adapters. Also cannot install the Integration Services as it says the OS is not of a high enough service pack. Now need to burn a CD sith the OS's latest service packs.
I managed to move a VM created on PC Virtual Server2007 to Hyper-V but from the process I believe you cannot move it back. Is that correct?
Would VMWARE be easier to impliment....as I seem to be taking two steps forward and 1.5 back on each attempt.
Appreciate your comments.
Aldanch: you say ESXi is also free. where do I dowload it from?
Thanks
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
first of all i would not go for Hyper-v role on a Domain controller as its always good to keep as less applications as possible on a DC.
you already are using it as a file server, print server, dns, dhcp on this. So that should be left alone.
what best you can do is configure HYPER-V on server 2 and if possible add more RAM so as to run majority of the VMs on this server.
Keep the disks that you are going to add to this server on raid 1 so that the VMs dont slow down because of the disk latency associated with other RAID issues.
server 3 can be retained as your linux server.
What is the error that you recieve when you try to install the Hyper-V role on the DC. Does it say that "VT" is not enabled then you need to go into the BIOS of the System and enable "virtualization" aka "VT".
revert back with your clarifications
bhanu