asked on
Suggest Virtualization scenario for Windows Server 2012
I've inherited a server running windows 2003 server enterprise, with a domain setup, but over the years, all the clients and replacement clients stopped using domain authentication and just use simple file share.
8 local w10 clients access a simple shared folder of scans on the server.
3 local w10 clients login to the server using TS to access quickbooks, a title companny application (magram TACS), and redvision
4 remote clients login to the server using TS to access a title companny application (magram TACS), and redvision
We need to replace the server with newer hardware, bring all the clients into AD for security and group policy management, and lock everything down. A few more clients will be using TS to access applications on the server in the near future.
I've had little experience with virtualization besides experimentation.
Looking at Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard, it has 2 vm's initially available on teh base license
I am curious as to how people normally virtualize small setups like ours, or theirs, basically, the question is, virtualize what, and keep what on the physical server?
Keep the physical server as the domain controller, then run 1 hyper-v VM to server for RDS access to apps/file server?
Or run the DC in one VM, and RDS/file server in another VM?
What about running a secondary DC on a retired box?
8 local w10 clients access a simple shared folder of scans on the server.
3 local w10 clients login to the server using TS to access quickbooks, a title companny application (magram TACS), and redvision
4 remote clients login to the server using TS to access a title companny application (magram TACS), and redvision
We need to replace the server with newer hardware, bring all the clients into AD for security and group policy management, and lock everything down. A few more clients will be using TS to access applications on the server in the near future.
I've had little experience with virtualization besides experimentation.
Looking at Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard, it has 2 vm's initially available on teh base license
I am curious as to how people normally virtualize small setups like ours, or theirs, basically, the question is, virtualize what, and keep what on the physical server?
Keep the physical server as the domain controller, then run 1 hyper-v VM to server for RDS access to apps/file server?
Or run the DC in one VM, and RDS/file server in another VM?
What about running a secondary DC on a retired box?
Windows Server 2012Virtualization
Last Comment
Philip Elder
I have an EE article that may help: Some Hyper-V Hardware and Software Best Practices.
Host is Hyper-V only.
If hosting client's environments SPLA (Service Provider Licensing Agreement) is required.
For a 10 client setup with four VMs:
+ DC
+ Exchange
+ RDSH
+ LoB (files, print, QBs/Sage Db manager, WSUS, ETC)
1U server with:
+ E3-1270v5
+ 64GB ECC
+ Hardware RAID with 1GB non-volatile cache
+ (8) 300GB 10K SAS spindles (size accordingly) in RAID 6
+ (2) Intel i350-T4
++ (2) Ports Management (spanning two NICs)
++ (6) Ports dedicated vSwitch (spanning two NICs)
That should give you more than enough horsepower and IOPS to run the setup.
Host is Hyper-V only.
If hosting client's environments SPLA (Service Provider Licensing Agreement) is required.
For a 10 client setup with four VMs:
+ DC
+ Exchange
+ RDSH
+ LoB (files, print, QBs/Sage Db manager, WSUS, ETC)
1U server with:
+ E3-1270v5
+ 64GB ECC
+ Hardware RAID with 1GB non-volatile cache
+ (8) 300GB 10K SAS spindles (size accordingly) in RAID 6
+ (2) Intel i350-T4
++ (2) Ports Management (spanning two NICs)
++ (6) Ports dedicated vSwitch (spanning two NICs)
That should give you more than enough horsepower and IOPS to run the setup.
ASKER
Most of the data that the file server serves to local users, belongs to the apps/users connected by RDS. Does it make sense to split the file/print server from the RDS server? Local clients rarely do heavy work on those files and no complex/lengthy print jobs.
For the cost of the extra license it makes sense to split things up.
In a consolidated setting an update toasting the VM brings the client down.
In a role specific setting the client can usually keep working.
In a consolidated setting an update toasting the VM brings the client down.
In a role specific setting the client can usually keep working.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
At the current time, we will run 1 VM as the domain controller (with good backup practices), and 1VM as the server for files and any users that need to remotely access title software.
It's a big jump between 2003 and 2012, so I am unfamiliar with all of the TS/RDS options available in 2012 R2 Standard. Which would be a good TS/RDS option for at most 6 users remotely logging in to access one title application on the server?
It's a big jump between 2003 and 2012, so I am unfamiliar with all of the TS/RDS options available in 2012 R2 Standard. Which would be a good TS/RDS option for at most 6 users remotely logging in to access one title application on the server?
ASKER
Also, wouldn't RAID6 give a bigger write penalty compared to RAID5 since each there are two parity stripes on each drive?
RAID 5 is deemed no longer suitable for enterprise requirements, as it can only tolerate 1 disk failure!
It also depends on your workload.
You can calculate the theoretical IOPS of a RAID6 versus RAID 5 datastore, depends, what fault tolerance you desire.
There is a write performance advantage with RAID 5, but the penalty is, if you lose more than 1 disk, your RAID set is broken.
It also depends on your workload.
You can calculate the theoretical IOPS of a RAID6 versus RAID 5 datastore, depends, what fault tolerance you desire.
There is a write performance advantage with RAID 5, but the penalty is, if you lose more than 1 disk, your RAID set is broken.
We run a minimum of eight 10K SAS disks. Throughput averages about 800MB/Second and IOPS average about 250-400 per disk depending on how the stack is formatted.
We have no issues with RAID 6.
We have no issues with RAID 6.
As for your old server, it really depends in it's age, and whether it can support a modern operating system, and does it have resilient hardware, e.g. dual power supplies, RAID controller, and disks.