Re: Best practice on virtualizing SBS

Would the /3GB switch give me problems if I only have 3 GB of ram and not 4?

"Tony Su" wrote:

1. If you can wait for Win2K8, then use the $28 hypervisor only for the host.
2. If you do install a full HostOS, then make the HostOS a Standalone Server
(not a member of the Domain) and install SBS with any other OS as Guests.
3. If you use Microsoft's virtual solutions, be aware Virtual Server 2005
heavily using kernel mode memory addresses, whereas if you use VMware you'll
be using largely user mode memory addresses, so in the second case will
likely want to implement the /3GB switch in the boot.ini for the HostOS if
the HostOS is 32-bit.

--
Tony Su
www.su-networking.com
ISA
SBS
Enterprise Mobile Solutions Architect


"MijakiDK" wrote:

I can throw in up to 8GB on my existing HW - New HW will be budgetted for
when SBS 2008 comes our way.

I will start with expanding from 1GB to 3 GB and then install more if needed

Thank you for all your input - It has made my decision clearer at least to
me ;-)

Happy new year

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:

OK, so if we stay within your expectations.

The current SBS hardware has 1GB RAM and your user count is low. It is this
hardware that will be hosting both SBS and your TS but you are prepared to
throw more RAM in the machine. Please confirm.

Hopefully, in 2009 new hardware will be purchased. This is pretty well ideal
as you have a fully fine SBS2003 and by then the 'kinks' will be ironed out
of SBS2008 and Hyper-V. (are you sure you can't go to 4GB (3.5 maybe) on the
current HW? it would be good. Depends on mobo/bios whether all such would be
available though.)

I'd throw the extra RAM in the current SBS and use it as host for TS in a
VM. You will be stealing RAM to run the VM but also have more RAM for the
SBS. In 2009 I would look at purchasing the new box with 'Server Core +
Hyper-V' only, doing the move to a VM at that time, 1st by moving the
existing SBS2003 to virtual then possibly moving to SBS2008.


"MijakiDK" <MijakiDK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DE8D8FF1-A942-4A09-A3FD-380F594EAC44@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wow that was a lot, nothing short and sweet from you Gumby :-)

The x64 issue has to be dealt with on a later stage as the existing server
is x32 and budget does not allow for the purchase of new hardware before
2009
- I hope ;-)

We are a tiny company with 6 active users - 3 working outside the office
on
PDA (sales) and dsl in the evening for mail. So the performance we have
today
is very fine and bottlenecks are not on the server side - I expect a
virtual
SBS will not be slower.

At the moment my SBS is running on 1GB of ram, the host box will get 3GB
and
I expect to use 2GB for the SBS and dual nic of course.

And finally, getting past the hardship of updating hardware using a
virtual
SBS is a very promissing concept.

Currently I'm having user data etc. on the D-drive of my SBS and AFAI
understood you would keep the D-drive in the VHD file?

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:

I can't go as far as saying this is anything formal 'best practice'
but...

Host box should be x64. This is even more necessary as we move forward
where
the host can be expected to be best implemented as Windows Server 2008
(CORE
only) with Hyper-V, I believe this will be x64 with VT only. Even staying
at
a W2k3+VS200x you can _expect_ x64 on the host to offer best performance.
OK, VMWare Server will do x64 guest on x32, as long as it fully supports
VT
(CPU, mobo, BIOS), but the x64 host can be _expected_ to handle it
better.

I'm starting to think that for a decent implementation you also want dual
or
better 'teamed' NICs on the host. There is some impact to network
performance in the VM imposed by the mere fact of virtualisation,
compensating for this by providing the best possible network performance
on
the host sounds like a reasonable idea.

It is suggested that having multiple RAID arrays, dedicating arrays to
the
VM and providing the arrays to the VM as 'direct' drives will provide
best
performance. I do not disagree with this in this aspect but prefer that
only
the VM be able to access the content of it's drives, I therefore
sacrifice
some performance by running 'drives as files'.

AV on the host should be told to exclude the folder containing and VHD's
from scanning and if you do provide 'direct drives' to the VM I'd also
exclude those drives from scanning by the host.

I would disable Shadow Copies on the host partitions holding VHD's. SC's
of
the VHD's will not be maintained anyway, due to size, but I don't want
any
impact from the host 'inspecting' the partition to see if it can SC
anything.

"MijakiDK" <MijakiDK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FBC63E68-4EE5-43C3-B62A-7A700C2F937D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hey there,

Any input on this?

Do I take an ordinary W2K3 server an load my SBS as a virtual on that
or?

Do I "loose" my D-drive for data and map to the data in the future when
I
have done the virtualisation? Thus only make a virtual server of my SBS
C-drive?

I haven't got a SAN or anything - I'm simply trying to get my 2 server
system down to 1 physical box.

My other server is a W2K3 for TS.

Happy new year

Kim






.

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: Virtual Server on SBS
    ... SBS) won't be able to recognise it. ... can only use 4 GB of RAM. ... Since you're 2800 is running your SBS server, you are in 32 bit mode, ... So I'd need a device CAL for Virtual Server? ...
    (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: SBS guest on Virtual Server 2005 host?
    ... ...With the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 operating system, ... purchase only one Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition license as the ... going to build a monster VM host, I'd want hardware and software support ... I've found SBS VM on a modest host to be adequate. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)