I brought up the subject of virtualizing some of our existing single
function white-box/out of warranty older servers as VMs in a new Win2008
server (which is now only proving domain controller functions). My boss,
the I.T. Manager, was against it, saying he didn't want to "put all his eggs
in one basket" on that one server.

(Our environment is 75 Win XP clients and 10 servers.)

Proposed Win 2008 HyperV Parent Server:
-Dell PE1950
-4 GB RAM (looking to add more)
-big hard drive

Proposed Child Server #1:
-WSUS server servicing all 75 clients (this is the only function of this
server)

Proposed Child Server #2:
-FTP server servicing public internet clients and private LAN clients. (this
is the only function of this server)

What is the risk to our network, if any, of having the FTP virtualized as
opposed to having it physical?
Would a server performing only as domain controller (and all FSMO roles) be
a good candidate to be a 2008 virtual parent server?

Many thanks!
Rob

Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast enough
disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should also
be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to use
separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a virtual
guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your DC
and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
redundancy.

Rob McShinsky
http://www.virtuallyaware.net


"Rob" <fake@notreal.com> wrote in message
news:%231WrJhriIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I brought up the subject of virtualizing some of our existing single
>function white-box/out of warranty older servers as VMs in a new Win2008
>server (which is now only proving domain controller functions). My boss,
>the I.T. Manager, was against it, saying he didn't want to "put all his
>eggs in one basket" on that one server.
>
> (Our environment is 75 Win XP clients and 10 servers.)
>
> Proposed Win 2008 HyperV Parent Server:
> -Dell PE1950
> -4 GB RAM (looking to add more)
> -big hard drive
>
> Proposed Child Server #1:
> -WSUS server servicing all 75 clients (this is the only function of this
> server)
>
> Proposed Child Server #2:
> -FTP server servicing public internet clients and private LAN clients.
> (this is the only function of this server)
>
> What is the risk to our network, if any, of having the FTP virtualized as
> opposed to having it physical?
> Would a server performing only as domain controller (and all FSMO roles)
> be a good candidate to be a 2008 virtual parent server?
>
> Many thanks!
> Rob
>

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0400, "Rob McShinsky"
<Please@UseGroup.com> wrote:

>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast enough
>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should also
>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to use
>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a virtual
>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your DC
>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>redundancy.
>
And to add to Rob's advice:
If you can add a separate hard drive (physical) for each virtual
machine you are going to use and place each on its own controller on
the host then by locating the VHD file of each guest on its own host
disk will significantly speed up the guests.
Also, the host should run a 64 bit OS and have *LOTS* of RAM so that
each guest can have a lot each. It also speeds things up and makes the
environment stable.


Bo Berglund

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:20:58 +0100, Bo Berglund wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0400, "Rob McShinsky"
> <Please@UseGroup.com> wrote:
>
>>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast enough
>>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should also
>>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to use
>>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a virtual
>>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your DC
>>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>>redundancy.
>>
> And to add to Rob's advice:
> If you can add a separate hard drive (physical) for each virtual
> machine you are going to use and place each on its own controller on
> the host then by locating the VHD file of each guest on its own host
> disk will significantly speed up the guests.
> Also, the host should run a 64 bit OS and have *LOTS* of RAM so that
> each guest can have a lot each. It also speeds things up and makes the
> environment stable.

And to answer the most important question that isn't being asked, you can't
add the Hyper-V role to a computer that also has the DC role.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Virtual Machines
http://www.identit.ca
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Awesome suggestions from everybody. TYVM!

-Rob

"Paul Adare" <pkadare@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ywhlefwh3uiv$.1jlghfrmd31o7.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:20:58 +0100, Bo Berglund wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0400, "Rob McShinsky"
>> <Please@UseGroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast
>>>enough
>>>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should
>>>also
>>>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to
>>>use
>>>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>>>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>>>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a
>>>virtual
>>>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your
>>>DC
>>>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>>>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>>>redundancy.
>>>
>> And to add to Rob's advice:
>> If you can add a separate hard drive (physical) for each virtual
>> machine you are going to use and place each on its own controller on
>> the host then by locating the VHD file of each guest on its own host
>> disk will significantly speed up the guests.
>> Also, the host should run a 64 bit OS and have *LOTS* of RAM so that
>> each guest can have a lot each. It also speeds things up and makes the
>> environment stable.
>
> And to answer the most important question that isn't being asked, you
> can't
> add the Hyper-V role to a computer that also has the DC role.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Virtual Machines
> http://www.identit.ca
> 10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.