Advice Setting Up Hyper V Enviroment

Hi All we have a Brand Shiny New Server, and we would like to Virtualize our Environment.

Currently out Network Consists of 1 x SBS 2003 Server using Exchange, 1 x Server we Access Through Terminal Services

We have purchased a Dell PowerEdge R520 From Dell which consists of 2 x 300GB SAS Drives (Mirrored)

And 4 x 1.2TB SAS Drives (Raid 5)

The New server has Server 2012 Standard R2, and I was going to install Hyper v and run Exchange in a Virtual Environment as well as out TS Server, I was going to use the Main Dell (Host) as the DC

Can any Recommend any setup Configurations or Best Practices in setting this up, or can see any Possible implications with this.

Would I have to do a clean install, I assume there would be no migration Options from SBS 2003 to 2012 etc
pepps11976Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Cliff GaliherCommented:
Never install other roles with Hyper-V. Either run a separate server for a DC, or make a guest VM for the DC as well. Not everyone is comfortable with virtualizing a DC so you'll get a variety of opinions on that front, but with 2012 and later my opinion is it is fine as long as you aren't running a cluster. But either way, there is consensus that having it coexist with the Hyper-V role is not a good idea.

As far as migrations, there are options there. Exchange will be the most difficult portion as there is no direct path from Exchange 2003 to the current version of Exchange. You'll need to use a 3rd-party migration tool or introduce a temporary Exchange 2010 server to facilitate that migration.

Any which way, it will be a "clean" install in that you can't do an in-place upgrade. Migrating data will be done after the OSes are installed. TechNet has migration guidance for the various roles and applications, such as migrating Active Directory, DNS, DHCP, Exchange, etc. You will not find a monolithic "here is how to migrate everything" document. You will instead pick and choose each role as you see fit based on your uses.
0
pepps11976Author Commented:
Ok It would probably be easier doing a fresh install then.

So are you advising either installing the hyper v role on the server and use that server as nothing else and Virtualize everything?

or just installing hyperv server core instead of the whole 2012 Operating system either or I suppose is fine?
0
Cliff GaliherCommented:
Virtualize everything. In 2012, there is no longer a "core" or "full" as there was in 2008/R2. Now adding various GUI components is just feature that can be added and removed as needed. There are merits to running without the GUI for patching reasons. But there is also merit to having the GUI for management. So that is a personal decision. If you were asking about the free Hyper-V edition, I do see no reason to run that if you have 2012/R2 server licenses as their virtualization rights provide you with free use of the management OS as long as you abide by the virtualization rights and don't install other roles. The free version of Hyper-V is unnecessarily limiting in such a scenario. The only time I see using the free Hyper-V version now is if you only have licenses for older server versions (or plan on running just Linux) and want to take advantage of the latest Hyper-V features in 2012/R2. In those cases, you wouldn't have a 2012/R2 license to exercise virtualization rights, thus the free edition makes sense. But that is a small percentage of non-hosted environments these days.
0
The Ultimate Tool Kit for Technolgy Solution Provi

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy for valuable how-to assets including sample agreements, checklists, flowcharts, and more!

pepps11976Author Commented:
And Raid 5 for the Vms?
0
Cliff GaliherCommented:
I'm not a fan of RAID5 in general. But VMs, Exchange data, SQL....is rather pedantic at that point. You choose the storage infrastructure to fit your performance and resiliency needs. Just because it is Hyper-V doesn't suddenly change those basic rules.
0
pepps11976Author Commented:
I open to suggestions for Raid options from what I have read Raid 10 has possible slow Write issues?
0
Cliff GaliherCommented:
That is a matter of context. You put 12 disks in RAID10, you'll get the write speed equivalent very roughly of 6 disks. That is *relatively* slow. Since data is being mirrored, it cuts the writes in half ...so 12/2 = 6.  Raid5 loses a disk to parity, but also has to calculate that parity, so you take a performance hit there. It would be faster than 6 disks, but not the performance of all 12, or even 11 (minus the disk for parity storage) because of the parity calculation during write.   But with that many disks, the chances of two disks failing before a rebuild finishes goes up rapidly, so except for archive data, you'd rarely see RAID5 anyways. And archive data rarely cares about performance, so there is *still* no reason to use RAID5 on the grounds that you need the performance difference it (arguably) provides.
 
At only 4 disks, 4/2 = 2, or 4 -1 (parity storage) - parity calc = 2.x?  


Truthfully, you are talking about such small scales here that you are never going to get great performance no matter what you choose. But virtualizing does consolidate more of your infrastructure which means a failure inevitably has a greater impact. Which means, in my opinion, resiliency trumps performance (since performance will never be stellar), and that means RAID10.

But again, I'm just not a fan of RAID5. In the era of very large disks, it doesn't take much bit-rot to render a RAID5 array unrecoverable. You didn't see this when disks were small, but larger disks means there are a lot more bytes (and sectors) where corruption can occur, and thus a greater chance that a corrupted sector wouldn't be found until the array was rebuilding after one failed disk. I don't think RAID5 has a place in a modern server environment anymore, and RAID6 really only has a place for archive data.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Exchange

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.