Re: Redundancy design in SBS Domain

I guess thinks have changed with 2008. SBS2003 ran happily for us with Exchange and SQL on much less. But virtualization was not on my radar, and Exchange and SQL need more with each iteration. We have SBS2008Prem (not installed yet) because I have been keeping up my software assurance since SBS2000. I originally went the SBS route because it was by far the cheapest was to get a server up and running with SQL Server at the time. We really like the 'companyweb' and use it a lot, but I guess we could have done this without SBS.

I see what you mean about ram now. Going the HV route with 12GB would give 8GB for SBS, 2GB for SQL(not enough), and 2GB for the HV. We need one or two more Win2008 licence for sure, and lots more ram. Maybe I need to look at EBS upgrade path.



"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eUCQ%23oWEKHA.5452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
neither of those machines are 'monsters' and neither would be capable of running both servers as guest well. The 12GB machine would be 'sufficient' to run both, particularly with no Exchange on SBS. Personally, if I wanted SBS without Exchange I wouldn't, I'd buy Windows Server. Exchange is the single most integrated component of SBS and particularly with the (to me stupid) 'image based install' which does not allow you to choose not to install Exchange I expect problems if people remove Exchange from SBS (the idea of running a small Exchange, maybe just the admin mailbox, has merit).

I'd probably return one of the CPUs from each box and swap it for RAM, with 16GB in each box either would be able to run both guests. A single quad core would _probably_ be sufficient horses for either system.

In any case the recommendation for the host is that it be dedicated to virtualisation, not perform other duties (eg. SQL).

Your scenario requires a minimum of 3 licenses using licensed product:
1) retail/open SBS08. Not OEM because you want the flexibility of running it on either box. (as a guest)
2) SQL server OS. 2nd server license from SBS08 Premium. (as a guest)
3) another Server08 license to be used as host on whichever box is not running 2nd Server. The 2nd server box gets hosting through 1+1 rights.
and a 4th if you want the HV servers to perform anything but virtualisation.

and that would leave you without 'live migration' because at least one Hyper-V server would not be R2 level.

suggesting that from necessity and also desirability (common platform) the free MSHVSR2 would be used as host on both boxes, and could therefore not host applications, just virtualisation.

"Terry Mc" <terrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uFbRBUSEKHA.1720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for your input everyone.

As you figured out I am trying to do two things here.

Keep our LOB app running by providing a failover with SQL mirroring, and
keep the downtime on the SBSPrem to a minimum as well. So would I have a scenario like this..

Server1 - HyperV with SBS as a guest,
SQL as a guest or on the Host?

Server2 - HyperV with a VM (ready for SBS if needed)
SQL as a guest or on the host?

I want Server2 as my backup Domain controler, so I would need to use the 2nd Win2008 licence for it, but would I just make it the host or put it in a VM with SQL server?

If I want SQL server on Server1 I would need to install it with SBS since I used the licence, or buy another Win2008 licence right?

Something to keep in mind is that the server I have on hand is a monster, 12GB ram 2 x Quad cores. The second will be similar but something like 8GB ram and a single Quad core. AND , right now we are using a hosted Exchange, so I will not be using EX2007.

Thanks
Terry Mc







"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uFkWL8rDKHA.1492@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
that's probably what I'm misrecalling :-)

So OK, in a planned down of one HV you could keep SBS up by moving it to
the other 'live'. To run both VMs on either HV you would need extra RAM
which, without other 'normally on' VMs, would be sitting idle most of the
time.

In an unplanned outage of the set of hardware running SBS it would take
some time to get SBS back up, running on the other box from shared
storage, until you resolved the hardware issue and then 'live migrated' it
back.

"Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eouP04qDKHA.1252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Looks like we're up to RC on this:

Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008: R2
http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/r2.aspx

I don't see anything about 'server' failover (just application failover,
which isn't supported). Maybe you're taking about 'Live Migration'
(which is supported):

"... Live migration allows you to transparently move running virtual
machines from one node of the failover cluster to another node in the
same cluster without a dropped network connection or perceived
downtime...."

--
Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]
============================

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%236iWRnoDKHA.5040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
is Microsoft Hyper-V Server R2 'cooked' yet? I haven't looked.

FREE MSHVSR2 is supposed to support failover, yes?

Two boxes, a third shared storage box (SAN/NAS which may itself be
redundant), with MSHVSR2 installed. In ordinary operation the OP's SBS
runs on one box and SQL on the other, however should either box go
offline the virtual machine is taken over by the other box, in real time
(very nearly :-).

You could very nearly do it with two boxes and setting up
synchronisation of the disks between the Hyper-V servers. iSCSI would be
a good addition to such a setup with it looking after keeping the disks
from the two boxes in sync.

LOT of network traffic to have SBS 'failover', my suggestions would
require, and basically assume, dedicated networks for the 'sync' traffic
by whatever mechanism is used.

""Robbin Meng [MSFT]"" <v-robmen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OFqVVpnDKHA.5508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Hi Terry,

Thanks for your posting here and Cliff's suggestion.

Have you considered using Hyper-V in SBS 2008 for Redundancy? Here is a
similar post where people using Hyper-V for Redundancy.

SBS 2008 Redundancy
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs&tid=612099d3-0e56-4d8c-8f29-69eee17414a3
&cat=&lang=&cr=&sloc=&p=1

Hope it helps.



Best regards,
Robbin Meng(MSFT)
Microsoft Online Newsgroup Support

==================================================================
Please post your SBS 2008 related questions to the SBS newsgroup on
Connect website:
https://connect.microsoft.com/sbs08/community/discussion/richui/default.aspx

Please post your EBS related questions to the EBS newsgroup on Connect
website:
https://connect.microsoft.com/ebs08/community/discussion/richui/default.aspx

If you want to use a newsreader other than a web forum to access these
newsgroups,
please refer to the following blog to apply NNTP password and configure
a newsreader:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2008/11/02/signing-up-for-the-sbs-2008-newsgroups.aspx
==================================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader
so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
==================================================================













.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... The sad part of most of us is that we haven't even tried or practiced a backup/restore and we freak out over a 'single" SBS box when we haven't even tried to restore it from a harddrive. ... Exchange seems to mix its words and titles, the global/generic use of POP and SMTP for just about every Exchange function is dumb, MailEnable understands post office protocol and simple mail transfer protocol in a "meaningfull" way. ... The standard profiles in Server are quite effective assuming you add new users to the correct account in the first place and your note running more than 1 file server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?
    ... Existing Exchange 2000 server - therefore have the CALs - so no new ones are ... Frank McCallister SBS MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... If SBS isn't for you...that's fine. ... Mailenable is an example of a freeware or pay for extra's, mail server. ... It is infinitly simpler to configure than Exchange once installed. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Email for second domain
    ... The Microsoft Exchange MTA Stacks service is normally disabled on Exchange 2003 Servers on SBS 2003. ... You can safely ignore the MTA warning messages on the SBS 2003 server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: 5 static IPs - How to best utilize them - Request for comments -
    ... don't see any use for assigning one for SQL another for Exchange and so on ... unless you plan to run different SSL websites on the same server... ... Can you tell me what are the benefits of assigning SQL an IP of its own (or ... Javier [SBS MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)