Re: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?

COOL Les!

No interaction issues with WSUS either?

--
/kj
"Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:OHY4j9UdGHA.1436@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your TS/ App server could be a VM guest right on the SBS host server! You
could even have a XP pro VM workstation reserved just for RWW! The
possibilities boggle the mind.

These are reality, I do it and can't imagine others don't as well. I have
two production TS virtual machines, guests on the SBS box. My own SBS (i'm
the only user ;-)) has a TS and 2 XP workstations as VMs. I leave the TS
and 1 workstation running full time.


--
Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBS Rocks !
----------------------
"Tell me and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand." - Confucius


"kj" <kj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u%23$1r1UdGHA.5016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Costs? well, I haven't done all the math on all the variants, but if I
was going to build a monster VM host, I'd want hardware and software
support for as much memory as VM will effectively use.

Would 32GB of RAM be enough? I don't know, maybe for now. Two or three
years from now after VS has 64bit guest OS support and I need VM-SQL,
VM-Exchange, and VM-SBS200x ?

That kinda leads one to EE for the host, and since it now includes
license for four EE VM hosts, there's a substantial savings potential
built in. Personally, it would have been nice had MSFT allowed the use of
any four 2003 server products. A nice little four server web farm would
be ideal!


For this;

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.

I've found SBS VM on a modest host to be adequate. But what is the gain
over just running on a physical box?
When you get three or four VM's running on a single host, you can
dynamically adjust resources and compute capabilities and share expensive
subsystems (to a point). Well planned, there's a considerable value
proposition, and of course increased risks.

I think the VM world will shake itself out in the next year or so. For
now, legacy server consolidations, dev and test, are proven winners and
generally only what I promote right now for VM's.

btw, You did notice that Virtual Server 2005 R2 is supported on both
versions of SBS 2003, right?
I haven't "gone there" yet, but it's on my lab schedule.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

Your TS/ App server could be a VM guest right on the SBS host server! You
could even have a XP pro VM workstation reserved just for RWW! The
possibilities boggle the mind.
--
/kj
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uBUH$RUdGHA.4108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'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: Slow Logon related to groups
    ... Open Server Management console on SBS ... Ensure the problematic user has permission to access its home folder on ... After the problematic user logon workstation, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Sudden Issues with DHCP & Remote Access
    ... Please post teh results of an ipconfig /all for the SBS server. ... After assigning IP Addresses to the workstation I could rejoin the domain ... Suitehelp.dll problem after SBS SP1 install. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Sudden Issues with DHCP & Remote Access
    ... Is the SBS second NIC disabled in the BIOS? ... After assigning IP Addresses to the workstation I could rejoin the domain ... Broadcom Netxtrem Gigabit on Server. ... Suitehelp.dll problem after SBS SP1 install. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Sudden Issues with DHCP & Remote Access
    ... But, if I do a Rebuild Server List in RRAS, the workstation where I disabled ... How to install Service Pack 1 for SBS 2003 ... Small Business Server Service Pack) ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: verification on SBS 2003 and Hyper-V
    ... Which, for the record, I agree with *as long* as the host OS is *only* running the Hyper-V role. ... You should *still* be buying a solid AV product for your SBS server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)