Solved

Advice Setting Up Hyper V Enviroment

Posted on 2014-10-08
7
197 Views
Last Modified: 2016-11-23
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
0
Comment
Question by:pepps11976
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 4
  • 3
7 Comments
 
LVL 58

Expert Comment

by:Cliff Galiher
ID: 40368622
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
 

Author Comment

by:pepps11976
ID: 40368641
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
 
LVL 58

Expert Comment

by:Cliff Galiher
ID: 40368660
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
Best Practices: Disaster Recovery Testing

Besides backup, any IT division should have a disaster recovery plan. You will find a few tips below relating to the development of such a plan and to what issues one should pay special attention in the course of backup planning.

 

Author Comment

by:pepps11976
ID: 40368693
And Raid 5 for the Vms?
0
 
LVL 58

Expert Comment

by:Cliff Galiher
ID: 40368712
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
 

Author Comment

by:pepps11976
ID: 40368720
I open to suggestions for Raid options from what I have read Raid 10 has possible slow Write issues?
0
 
LVL 58

Accepted Solution

by:
Cliff Galiher earned 500 total points
ID: 40368772
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

Featured Post

Industry Leaders: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

This article aims to explain the working of CircularLogArchiver. This tool was designed to solve the buildup of log file in cases where systems do not support circular logging or where circular logging is not enabled
Optimized for private cloud infrastructures and datacenters, Nano Server is minimalistic, yet super-efficient, OS for services such as Hyper-V and Hyper-V cluster. Learn how you can easily deploy Nano Server and unlock its power!
To add imagery to an HTML email signature, you have two options available to you. You can either add a logo/image by embedding it directly into the signature or hosting it externally and linking to it. The vast majority of email clients display l…
This video discusses moving either the default database or any database to a new volume.

756 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question