The Need for Virtualization
Several, several years ago the consensus was that there was no benefit to vitualiizing servers until you had three or more servers,
The other day I was told to virtualize even if the customer only had one server. It that the way things have gone? Even having one and only one server in this day and age it is considered best practice to virtualize?
The other day I was told to virtualize even if the customer only had one server. It that the way things have gone? Even having one and only one server in this day and age it is considered best practice to virtualize?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I have read Lee's article. Basically the same points CompProbSolv makes. @andrew is was not only a question posed here on EE but other forums as well. You have to remember where OSs and licenses were that long ago. Hardware prices too. There was a point where you went from 8GB to 16 and the price was gradruple. Same senario with hard drives and CPUs. Licenses weren't free. Virtualization that long ago was a very expensive proposition and not at all cost effective for customers having one or two physical servers.
So the backup that comes with Windows works well on VMs?
So the backup that comes with Windows works well on VMs?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Knock on wood I have never had a hardware problem with a server. I will open up another question on Windows Backup.
I remember someone telling me that you should never use Hyper-V on a SBS box (SBS 2011 I believe it was). Is that still the case? You should only use Hyper-V on Windows Standard? not Essentials?
I remember someone telling me that you should never use Hyper-V on a SBS box (SBS 2011 I believe it was). Is that still the case? You should only use Hyper-V on Windows Standard? not Essentials?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
OK. One last question and I'll be on my way. Leave the Host as part of a Workgroup and install only the Hyper-V roll. What about the partitions on the host. Is there any need to have a "Data" partition or just make it one big "System" partition?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Your confusing me just a little Andrew. There has to be at least one partition. What are you suggesting? Two seperate set of disks? System on RAID 1, Data on RAID 6?
It is a small server. Single set of disks. RAID 6. Should I split it in to two partitions "System" and "Data" or just one big "System" partition?
It is a small server. Single set of disks. RAID 6. Should I split it in to two partitions "System" and "Data" or just one big "System" partition?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Well... I thought this would have been a simple question but your answer still makes no sense to me. I only have 4 disks in this server. They are set up ad on RAID 6. As a rule on a server you create one partition for the OS and one partition for the Data. Since the only role this server should have is HYPER-V I am question the need for a data partition since there really should be any "Data" on the host.
Unless it would to be to keep the Virtial Machines and Virtial Disks there.......
Unless it would to be to keep the Virtial Machines and Virtial Disks there.......
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
OK. So standard server setup for the host. Two partitions. The C: partition will contain the operating system and the D: partition will really just have two folders. Virtual Machines and Virtual Hard drives. Thanks.
ASKER
I use Acronis. It is a simple, simple matter to restore an entire server to a desktop machine. It is just as easy to do that as it is to restore a VM backup.
Rebooting is done so seldom I wouldn't consider a quicker reboot on a VM to me much of an advantage.
The networks I am talking about are 25 user. I wouldn't think that having the AD, DHCP, DNS and file/printer sharing on the same server would slow it down all that much would it? I mean as a rule vittualization slows things down anyway.
So even with a small network of 25 users and the server doing nothing trick virtualization would be the way to go?