[windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
- From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:45:18 +0200
Well, I guess I have many setups. 8-) I usually go with the standard setting
with 8GB per VM. SOme of my VMs have two or three V-HDs, those are mostly
software-raid experiments.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:05 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
Our servers don't use that much space (we have 130GB per physical server and
we aren't using more than a quarter of it) but HDD performance is critical. On
the odd occasions when the physical servers are rebooted it takes a while for
all the virtual servers to boot. If I make them boot simultaneously the shared
disk access slows the whole process to a crawl. I may move everything across
to my SAN to help that bottleneck.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sorin Srbu [mailto:sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 August 2006 12:45
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
Also add more hd-space than you ever imagine you'd ever need.
I started out with 2x 160GB software raid0 on my admin-workstation. I quickly
added another one, and I'd need a fourth one actually... I have a dozen or so
virtual computers available, although they aren't running all, all the time.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:31 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
If you can rake together the hardware (it doesn't have to be high spec for
testing but lots of memory is a good idea) it's worth doing, especially now
that decent virtualisation software is available for free.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 August 2006 12:11
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
The way I see it is that it's kind of going back to how it was when hardware
was really expensive, so you had to have one server running multiple
apps/roles. Then when hardware got cheaper, esp discs and memory, all the
roles were split up to single machines, at least in my experience.
I guess I still have a slight fear about running a lot on one machine, (I know
the machines are hardly comparable with then and have redundant
discs/power/nics etc), but I really could do with getting one running as I
said for a lab machine with a citrix box and a few other bits and bobs like
WSUS etc.
Thanks for the info.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:58
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
We run a couple of low-use Citrix servers (<5 users but a very fussy app), a
PDC and BDC for a legacy NT4 domain, pairs of servers (on different physical
hosts) supporting various in-house developed systems and a variety of similar
machines. I would be happy to run mission-critical servers on VMWare now that
I have more experience and confidence in it but all of our critcal systems are
heavy-use.
On the desktop I use VirtualPC to run all sorts of legacy machines for
software testing and development.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:39
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
So you're running non mission critical servers, I like the idea of virtual
servers but most of ours have mission critical apps on. I like the idea for
lab machines though!
Cool.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:30
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
The physical servers have lots of built-in redundancy and I wouldn't class any
of thevirtual servers as enterprise-critical. In the event of a physical
failure I can copy the important ones back from tape (each server is only a
handful of files) to another server (I have a lower-spec server for
development) and bring them back within a few minutes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 August 2006 15:00
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
What happens though if a server fails? Haven't you put all your eggs in a few
baskets?
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 21 August 2006 12:42
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
I've got a couple of beefy Quad-Xeon, 12GB RAM machines running about 30
servers in total.
The main benefits are I can provision low-use servers without wasting hardware
and I can provision them quickly, typically less than 10 minutes from deciding
it's needed to having it available on the domain for use. They are also easy
to backup and move to another host in the event of a hardware failure,
although I've yet to have one.
Running VMWare GSX 3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Leach [mailto:rleach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 August 2006 21:27
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] OT - Virtualization
Just curious...
How many of you are now using either server virtualization or storage
virtualization (or both)?
If you are using it, what benefits have you seen?
If not, do you plan to use it anytime soon?
Again, just curious.
TIA
Ron
Visit the new FDL web - site designed to serve you better-
http://www.fdl.co.uk This message has been sent from Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd
and confirms that the email has been scanned and to the best of our
knowledge is free from virus infection. The unauthorised use, disclosure,
forwarding or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please email
moderator@xxxxxxxxx This message and any attachments, which are confidential
and may be privileged, are for the use of the addressee(s) only. The views
and opinions expressed in this email message are the author's own and may
not reflect the views and opinions of Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.
Other related posts:
