Re: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Interesting. A little vague about current versions though the 2003 family is
implied. Rather doubt SBS would be covered. Guess another licensing call is
in order.

--
/kj
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uJIXucYdGHA.1656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Actually, the extended licensing rights cover a license for (at least
'just
about') every Windows Server OS back to NT.

Virtual Machine Technology FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/virtualization/faq.mspx
...With the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 operating system, Enterprise
Edition, you receive use rights for four virtual machines under one
physical
license. In this case, if you are setting up four virtual machines within
Virtual Server 2005 to run one instance of Windows 2000 Server and three
instance of Windows NT Server 4.0 at the same time, you will need to
purchase only one Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition license as the
host.

"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: 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)
  • 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: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?
    ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ... That kinda leads one to EE for the host, ... A nice little four server web farm ... You MUST have two physical NICs ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Error 1054
    ... Here I suggest you use the configure site in Active directory to create ... link to synchronize data with SBS server for example 2 hours once. ... be set to be equal to the number of SBS client access license. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)