Re: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?

'if the host server has only one NIC'

re-read my post.

I've also stopped promoting the VS Extension to EE licensing, in all but the
most extreme cases, or if you intend the host OS to be EE for some other
reason, the cost of EE is just too much. Standard Server x64 would handle
most requirements for host (RAM and IO).

I agree however that running SBS in the VM is 'pushing the envelope'. The
case I'm considering it for is an existing Server 2003 servicing ~6 users
with modest requirements (and a tight budget). I can actually imagine that
if the implementation is successful and SBS proves to be of benefit but
lacking in performance the system would be moved to real hardware.

"kj" <kj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%234LZpsxcGHA.3344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, they do. If the Host Server has only one NIC then any client
connected
to the same network as the NAT can bypass the SBS server and any VM guest
OS. All it has to do is be configured for the same network address as the
NAT and use the NAT as the gateway. You MUST have two physical NICs in the
host to have a VM ISA isolate non virutal workstations.

Using Enterprise Edition of Window Server 2003 and VM2005R2 the four bonus
(free) copies of Enterprise Server running as a VM host do provide
substantial cost savings. Factoring in those as $0 you've got such a case.
But all VM's are emulated and as such inheritedly are performance loosers
compared to running physical counterparts. Host OS to Guest OS network
performance in Virtual Server 2005 R2 is, well, "less than ideal".

Virtual Server 2005 R2 VM guests are limited in emulated processors (1)
and
memory (3.6gb), lack 64bit guest OS, and disk IO performance isn't what
you'd expect from your typical mid market RAID controller.

VM's are ideal for lab testing, developers, server consolidation, and
probably countless cases where performance isn't as important or the
emulation overhead can be affored.

I'd only consider using it in the SBS environement for testing or Disaster
Recovery / Business Continuation.

Still, I'm a big fan of VS2005R2 and promote it often.
--
/kj
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u3DkjzucGHA.3952@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"kj" <kj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23zYIGfucGHA.1276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But when a physical client configures a "static" address of
192.168.33.x
they bypass ISA and all but the NAT. Also I'm quite sure the VS Server
must have a NIC with an IP.

No they don't re-read the scenario.

But with a VS server with 2 physical NICS, one the SBS virtual external
network, and another physically isolated as the SBS virtual internal
network, it works quite well. It also avoids a single NIC bandwidth
bottleneck.

I've been using this as a virtual lab for some time now, and it works
well,... for a lab.

on VS2005 R2? The flexibility, test-ability, and disaster recovery
possibilities are tantilizing to consider.

These are all good reasons, but performance just isn't one of them. A
host system configured to provide like kind performance to a VM SBS
environment just isn't very cost effective. Now if you were going to
"host" three or four separate companies running their own virtualized
SBS
environment.... hmmm, there's a thought.

Would hardware sufficient to run SBS, a TS Application Mode server, and
an
LOB Application server in the virtual environment cost less than three
sets of hardware? Maybe the TS wouldn't be a virtual, AFAIK there's no
reason not to run the host OS as TS Apps Mode (as long as it's locked
down
enough that users can't stuff your virtuals :-).

--
/kj
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OyYyzMucGHA.380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
imagine this

You have a simple NAT router in front of a 2NIC W2003S running as VS
host, the router is at 192.168.33.1/24. The external NIC of the W2003S
box either has an IP of 192.168.44.4/24 or possibly doesn't have IP
bound to it at all.

SBS runnning in the virtual environment also has two NICs, one bridged
to each physical NIC. ISA running on the SBS with an external of
192.168.33.2/24 and an internal of 192.168.16.2/24. You can see that
in
this scenario the .44.y network is a 'dead end', not in use, or maybe
doesn't exist at all.

BTW: I don't think you're crazy but though I'm sortta keen to do
similar
m'self I'm holding off. To run SBS in a virtual environment you not
only
need the fast IO (HDD & RAM) that SBS normally needs but also
sufficient to compensate for running in virtual space and possibly
running alongside other virtual machines. The best idea would be to
minimise the tasks machines running in the virtual space are
responsile
for. ie. SBS Standard would seem feasible, adding ISA and SQL servres
to
the tasks performed in the virtual machine _may_ be asking a bit too
much.

"Doc King" <DocKing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DA107DCB-730B-4734-A0F3-6BE37B0B4FEF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Am I out of my rabbit-ass mind thinking about deploying a production
SBS box
on VS2005 R2? The flexibility, test-ability, and disaster recovery
possibilities are tantilizing to consider.

My primary issue is how to protect the 2003 R2 host. Is there any way
to
deploy a front end ISA server while retaining the SBS ISA
functionality?
Perhaps users could VPN into the bastion ISA box?

--
Chris King, DC, MCP










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?
    ... could even have a XP pro VM workstation reserved just for RWW! ... guests on the SBS box. ... That kinda leads one to EE for the host, and since it now includes license ... A nice little four server web farm would be ideal! ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?
    ... could even have a XP pro VM workstation reserved just for RWW! ... guests on the SBS box. ... That kinda leads one to EE for the host, ... A nice little four server web farm would ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Is this net traffic normal?
    ... accept RDP and connect to them from the server. ... Something worth checking at this point is that neither the SBS nor any workstation have any DNS server configured other than the LAN IP address of the SBS. ... You may have eliminated most of the workstations, but you can't remove the SBS, and worth remembering that many NICs have their transceivers powered even with the computer off, see below. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Installing new SBS 03 server. Will that be 1 Nic or 2 ?
    ... So you'll want and need to fully understand your Sonicwall and what it can do, and how to configure it properly. ... Personally, I stick my SBS Premium, with ISA 2k4, behind a good firewall and have two layers of protection on a dual NIC. ... I guess technically 2 NICs would be more secure, but hopefully the SonicWall makes that irrelevant. ... and when the server was about 6 weeks old a drive failed. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: proper way of backing up exchange and reinstalling on same server
    ... label my nics internal and external as I use two nics in my servers. ... Workstation should point to the SBS nic and only the SBS nic for DNS ... You should but do nota have to use dhcp from the server. ... Connection-specific DNS Suffix. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)