Avatar of Randall Seiler
Randall Seiler
Flag for United States of America asked on

Can server running AD/DNS have 4 nics active if 3 are assigned to VM?

Hoping for some advice from IT people with more experience than I.
Replacing an 8year old SBS2011 (name = “SERVER”), with a new Server 2022 Standard.
The Exchange 2010 has already been migrated to 365.
New hardware = HPE ProLiant ML350 G10 server; 20 cores, 32GB RAM, 4-GNics.
This is for a small company with @30 users.
Will be migrating from SBS2011 to the new system, so I want to keep the name of the company and user data as “SERVER”, so that links and other desktop maps will work ok.
My plan is:
Install the 2022 Std. on the hardware, (Name = “DCServer”).
Assign NIC1 to DCServer
Migrate the AD, DNS, DHCP to DCServer
Install Hyper-V on DCServer.
Assign the other 3 nics to the VM
Install a second 2022 Std. as a VM, (Name = “SERVER”)
Migrate the data & shares to SERVER.
Does this plan work?  Any advice or suggestions are appreciated.

Another idea: install 2022 on the hardware and install both the DCServer and SERVER as VMs?

VirtualizationHardwareWindows Server 2019

Avatar of undefined
Last Comment
Randall Seiler

8/22/2022 - Mon
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Lee W, MVP

Log in or sign up to see answer
Become an EE member today7-DAY FREE TRIAL
Members can start a 7-Day Free trial then enjoy unlimited access to the platform
Sign up - Free for 7 days
or
Learn why we charge membership fees
We get it - no one likes a content blocker. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content.
Not exactly the question you had in mind?
Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions.
ask a question
Philip Elder

Ed Dredd

If security is not an issue,  I think,  technically, it will work. A friend of mine, using ALL in one in a physical server with 4Gbnics, hosting 6 VM inside:  DC, DNS+DHCP, WebServer, EmailServer, FileServer and DB server.. his budget is very tight. maybe a bit slower but works. 

even i think the std version can use all roles without being virtual. just add some extra RAM and storage.
 
Lee W, MVP

@Ed Dredd

Just because you can (Windows "lets" you) doesn't mean you should.  Running ANYTHING on the physical host is NOT a best practice - you DON'T DO IT.  BAD IDEA.  I don't know how else to say it.  

If you want to combine server roles, you can, but do it on the VMs, NOT the host.  For more information, see my article on Servers Sharing Services:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/28694/Servers-Sharing-Services.html
Experts Exchange has (a) saved my job multiple times, (b) saved me hours, days, and even weeks of work, and often (c) makes me look like a superhero! This place is MAGIC!
Walt Forbes
Ed Dredd

@Lee W, MVP 
not a good practice, i agreed BUT yes technically it works.. 
Randall Seiler

ASKER
@Lee W, MVP
Server isn't the best option (due to Microsoft licensing, you should only have 16 or fewer cores; 20 cores costs the client an extra $250 or so in Server Licensing.  For EACH SET of VMs you're using.

Just to clarify (after talking to the Microsoft guy at D&H Distributer), as long as all cores are licensed, the Server 2022 license allows you to install on the physical hardware AND 2 VMs.

Thank you for your quick response, your expert input is very helpful and much appreciated.

@Philip Elder
I gave Lee the full win since he responded first with the basic answer.  But I very much appreciate all the associated information that you provided – Thank you.

@Ed Dredd
Thank you for your input.
Lee W, MVP

Correct, as long as all cores are licensed, your fine.  But 16 cores for a 30 user environment where you only need DC and file server?  That, to me, is overkill.  I configure DCs with 2 cores and file servers with 2 cores.  That means that, in your case, you have 16 cores largely sitting idle the entire time.  I like having room to grow if you need to add more services, but you're only effectively using 4 cores... (assuming you configure appropriately), which means you would have had 12 cores room for growth.  Instead, with a server with 20 cores, you're now forced to pay extra for a Microsoft license to license 4 more cores you really don't need.  The CPU costs more, the License costs more... and future growth costs more.  

It is what it is now, but for small environments with light needs, I try hard to avoid CPUs / systems with more than 16 cores.

BTW, just in case you didn't read my articles, please make sure you DON'T overallocate vCPU - 2 each for the DC and file server.  Monitor performance - if CPU usage shows excess, at a set.  But if you over-allocate, you COULD actually HURT performance!
Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week.
Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more.
Randall Seiler

ASKER
@Lee W, MVP
I will be reading your articles, thank you for sharing those.  I agree with your premise but I got this server on a deep discount from a supplier and it came with the 20-core CPU.   I also want to have a base that can be expanded to whatever this client may need, which has so far been difficult to anticipate; it 5 years they have grown from 5 in-office users to 30.  And, since one of their pieces of field equipment costs $20K - $300K, the extra $250 for the extra license won't dent their pocket change much, but you make a very good point for most other small companies that are struggling these days.