Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:18 -0700
SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH, AAARRRRGGGGHHHH, AAARRRRGGGGHHHH, AAARRRRGGGGHHHH,
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH.
Evidence please.
Evidence of what?
That it can be a DC?
Can be a member server?
Is, or is not, supported by MS in those configurations?
....or of my opinions?
My post is about "Can", not so much "should".
Domain partner replication with two DC's and especially SBS can be tricky
enough without tossing it in a virtual environment. I'm fully in agreement
with Charlie on avoiding a second DC in the same Virtualized environment.
Using hyper-v manager, I'd stick with a workgroup. Other tools like SCVMM
I'd configure (and have done twice already) it as a member server.
I'm seeking evidence too, but it's about the CAL question, and my opinions
likley wouldn't carry much wieght in a court of law.
;-)
"kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u$EWNa9QJHA.4680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Patrick D. wrote:
I think that the host system cannot be in the domain and cannot be a
dc:
In SBS you cannot have a additional or "external" dc. And SBS must
always be the first device which enters into the domain.
Perhaps it could join the domain after the virtual sbs is installed.
But I don't know the member servers behavior if this one must be
started chronilogic before the dc.
Patrick
It *can* be a member, it *can* be a DC. The question is if you
*want* it to be so.
There are implications either way and the decision (imo) should be
based upon how ( & with what ) the host & virtualization software
will be managed. The host being a DC in a SBS forest is just asking
for trouble in almost all cases, imho.
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
I'm still unsuccessfully looking for info (links) on (even
semi)official _real evidence_ of why the parent should not be a
domain member (or in fact DC).
:-)
I do agree that it is, at least theoretically, more secure. I'll
even give acknowledgement for 'reduced downtime due to patching'.
'robustnes and efficiency' AFAICS is however an opinion, and no
matter how much I value yours I still want those citations :-)
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:OP4B1c2QJHA.4256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The official line is that it takes 512 Mb for Server 2k8 running
just the Hyper-V Role. Add to that ~75Mb per child partition. If
you're running Core, the base is more like 384 Mb.
You should NOT add additional tasks to the virtualization parent.
It should just run Hyper-V (or your preferred virtualization
solution.) This improves security, reduces downtime due to
patching, and improves overall robustness and efficiency of the
child partitions.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Patrick D." <PatrickD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3504A7D6-E8F8-4318-884C-BB9697E0AFC8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
how much RAM does Windows Server 2008 full installation need as
host system?
Does this RAM amount depent on specific tasks?
Patrick
"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
Yes, your scenario will work. The parent partition (host) should
be a workgroup member, not a domain member, and you can
virtualize SBS and any
secondary servers you wish. By using SBS Premium edition, you
already have
the second server and parent partition covered, but you can also
use regular
Windows Server 2008 Standard or Enterprise for the parent
partition.
The choice of running Windows Server Core or Windows Server Full
Install is
yours entirely. Core has definite advantages (security, smaller
footprint)
but so does the GUI full install (ease of administration).
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Patrick D." <PatrickD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:BAAF2EC7-C734-450E-96C0-893B29A90F4E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi
I want to virtualize SBS 2008 Standard with Hyper-V by adding
several member
Servers.
(Why SBS and member Servers? Because the setup and
administrative tasks of
the DC is more easy and it includes a simple way to run
Exchange. The member
servers are for specific testing scenarios.)
The entire solution is placed on one physical server.
It would be great to manage all virtual administrative issues
locally. If it is possible, I don't want to create a second
domain or workgroup for
those administrative tasks.
Is it a good way, to install Windows Server (Standard /
Enterprise) 2008
Core first with Hyper-V and to put all Servers including SBS
onto this basic
virtual solution?
What is the usual scenario to implement such a solution?
Thanks for your hint.
Patrick
--
/kj
--
/kj
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- References:
- SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: Patrick D.
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: Charlie Russel - MVP
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: Patrick D.
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: Charlie Russel - MVP
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: Patrick D.
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: kj [SBS MVP]
- Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- Prev by Date: Re: SBS Network Design Inquiry
- Next by Date: Re: Setting up reverse DNS
- Previous by thread: Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- Next by thread: Re: SBS 2008 with Member Servers in Hyper-V
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
