Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?

Thanks in advance, Andrew.

"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...

> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

Absolutely. We run 3 Terminal Servers on ESX with 30-40 users on each one,
and they are all running a large ERP program. Works great!

How much RAM on that box?

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote in message
news:uLu1XSBkIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...
>
>> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
>> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>
> Absolutely. We run 3 Terminal Servers on ESX with 30-40 users on each
> one, and they are all running a large ERP program. Works great!
>
>

I'd only be concerned about the overall RAM requirements. Running this on
Virtual Server would limit the VM to ~3.5 GB. Using Hyper-V would eliminate
that issue and allow you to give the child partition up to 32 GB, assuming
your hardware supported that much. My concern for a single socket box would
be the total amount of RAM supported by the motherboard.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...
> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
>
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

I'd agree with Charlie - what's "fairly well spec'ed"? Your limitation will
likely be RAM and your choice of virtualization platform...

--

Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...
> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
>
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

"Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" <ryan@clustering101.com> wrote in message
news:AE508255-6636-41B9-8500-63A0F8F63D41@microsoft.com...

> I'd agree with Charlie - what's "fairly well spec'ed"? Your limitation
> will likely be RAM and your choice of virtualization platform...

My ESX boxes have 32GB of RAM, and I have limited each Terminal Server VM to
4GB each. With 30 users, the memory commit on the Terminal Servers is
about 3GB.

We just migrated the TS boxes from physical servers with dual processor,
hyperthreaded 2.8 GHz Xeons and 6GB of RAM into VMs with 1 virtual CPU and
4GB of RAM. They actually seem to run as well, if not faster, in the VM
environment. The ESX boxes are dual-core, dual-processor 3.0 GHz Xeons.

Sorry, this group is specifically for Microsoft Virtual Server.

--

Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP


"Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote in message
news:Og%23Eh4CkIHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" <ryan@clustering101.com> wrote in message
> news:AE508255-6636-41B9-8500-63A0F8F63D41@microsoft.com...
>
>> I'd agree with Charlie - what's "fairly well spec'ed"? Your limitation
>> will likely be RAM and your choice of virtualization platform...
>
> My ESX boxes have 32GB of RAM, and I have limited each Terminal Server VM
> to 4GB each. With 30 users, the memory commit on the Terminal Servers is
> about 3GB.
>
> We just migrated the TS boxes from physical servers with dual processor,
> hyperthreaded 2.8 GHz Xeons and 6GB of RAM into VMs with 1 virtual CPU and
> 4GB of RAM. They actually seem to run as well, if not faster, in the VM
> environment. The ESX boxes are dual-core, dual-processor 3.0 GHz Xeons.
>
>

"Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" <ryan@clustering101.com> wrote in message
news:7BAFD9DC-20A6-4565-B1D1-510F016E3C59@microsoft.com...

> Sorry, this group is specifically for Microsoft Virtual Server.

I know, but he was asking how they ran in a VM environment and just wanted
to say that it should work given enough resources, since it works fine in
ESX. No reason why they shouldn't work equally well under Hyper-V or Server
2005, as long as enough memory is provided to support the number of users.

I'd agree. For that number of users, however, I'd be a bit leary of trying
to do it with Virtual Server. Being forced in 32-bit TS, for one thing, and
the hard limit on the maximum amount of RAM. Plus only a single CPU per VM.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote in message
news:OIZII3DkIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Ryan Sokolowski [MVP]" <ryan@clustering101.com> wrote in message
> news:7BAFD9DC-20A6-4565-B1D1-510F016E3C59@microsoft.com...
>
>> Sorry, this group is specifically for Microsoft Virtual Server.
>
> I know, but he was asking how they ran in a VM environment and just wanted
> to say that it should work given enough resources, since it works fine in
> ESX. No reason why they shouldn't work equally well under Hyper-V or
> Server 2005, as long as enough memory is provided to support the number of
> users.
>
>

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:C36AA982-7ABA-4CE5-9AC5-40D9DD3C6735@microsoft.com...

> I'd agree. For that number of users, however, I'd be a bit leary of trying
> to do it with Virtual Server. Being forced in 32-bit TS, for one thing,
> and the hard limit on the maximum amount of RAM. Plus only a single CPU
> per VM.

True, Hyper-V might be a better option than Virtual Server. I've got
Hyper-V RC0 running here on a test box, and it seems to perform much better
than VS 2005. Of course, Hyper-V's not officially released yet and support
is minimal.

From a performance standpoint, we're running the Server 2003 x86 version of
Terminal Server virtually under ESX, and we've limited each TS to one
virtual CPU (although the ESX server has 4 cores). The performance is
perfectly acceptable even with 30 users on each one. Each TS is on its own
ESX box though.

After a conversatatiom with a HP rep on server spec's I've settled on
running dual quad core CPUs (Intel Xeon 54xx) with 16gb RAM, with a minimum
of 4gb assigned to the TS. And I also intend to limit the server to no more
than 2 VM's.

I've not yet settled on which software to use, my original thought was to
use Hyper-V with Server 2008. But after some research VMware Infrastructure
3 is also quite apealing, but will cost us a lot more money.

Perhaps I try both and see how things go. Thanks for the replies.


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...
> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
>
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:46066B64-1366-47C5-B695-6D4AC56E0BBA@microsoft.com...

> After a conversatatiom with a HP rep on server spec's I've settled on
> running dual quad core CPUs (Intel Xeon 54xx) with 16gb RAM, with a
> minimum of 4gb assigned to the TS. And I also intend to limit the server
> to no more than 2 VM's.
>
> I've not yet settled on which software to use, my original thought was to
> use Hyper-V with Server 2008. But after some research VMware
> Infrastructure 3 is also quite apealing, but will cost us a lot more
> money.
>
> Perhaps I try both and see how things go. Thanks for the replies.

For only running 2 VMs on the box, I would give Hyper-V a shot. It's much
less expensive and the performance seems much improved over VS 2005. Vi3 is
nice, but if you're only going to run 2-3 VMs I think it's way overkill. If
you were going to run a VM server farm with 100s of VMs spread across a
half-dozen hosts (like we do), then I'd say Vi3 is more up your alley. Even
though we have Vi3, we will be using Hyper-V at a lot of outlying sites and
on single server boxes.

I'm running a lot more VMs than just TS on host systems with two dual-core
Xeons. Our experience has been that you'll run out of memory well before
CPU, especially with dual quad cores. Even with 30 users on one of our TS
VMs, the CPU usage is minimal.

That will work nicely. I'd choose Hyper-V, here - the cost differential is
high, and Hyper-V should give you what you need. I've been running it on an
HP ML-350 G5 with 16 GB and 2x dual core Xeons here, quite successfully. My
TS is Windows Server 2008 x64, and I've given it 6 GB of RAM.

Spend the money you save not buying VMWare to spend on the I/O
infrastructure. That will make the biggest difference in performance.
Virtualization is very sensitive to disk I/O speed, so building a fast,
wide, disk array will substantially.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:46066B64-1366-47C5-B695-6D4AC56E0BBA@microsoft.com...
> After a conversatatiom with a HP rep on server spec's I've settled on
> running dual quad core CPUs (Intel Xeon 54xx) with 16gb RAM, with a
> minimum of 4gb assigned to the TS. And I also intend to limit the server
> to no more than 2 VM's.
>
> I've not yet settled on which software to use, my original thought was to
> use Hyper-V with Server 2008. But after some research VMware
> Infrastructure 3 is also quite apealing, but will cost us a lot more
> money.
>
> Perhaps I try both and see how things go. Thanks for the replies.
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:97B44931-45D2-441D-8157-EB9A6381AA33@microsoft.com...
>> Is it feasible to run a Terminal Server (20 or so users) and a Linux
>> Datebase as a VM on a fairly well spec'd quad core server?
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>

By the time Hyper-V RTMs we should also have an RTM of the next version of
System Center Virtual Machine Manager. I haven't seen the new version, yet,
but given what's in the current version, and the promises of support for
VMWare and Hyper-V in the new version, you might want to take a serious look
at it. I know we will be.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote in message
news:eicG1BOkIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:46066B64-1366-47C5-B695-6D4AC56E0BBA@microsoft.com...
>
>> After a conversatatiom with a HP rep on server spec's I've settled on
>> running dual quad core CPUs (Intel Xeon 54xx) with 16gb RAM, with a
>> minimum of 4gb assigned to the TS. And I also intend to limit the server
>> to no more than 2 VM's.
>>
>> I've not yet settled on which software to use, my original thought was to
>> use Hyper-V with Server 2008. But after some research VMware
>> Infrastructure 3 is also quite apealing, but will cost us a lot more
>> money.
>>
>> Perhaps I try both and see how things go. Thanks for the replies.
>
> For only running 2 VMs on the box, I would give Hyper-V a shot. It's much
> less expensive and the performance seems much improved over VS 2005. Vi3
> is nice, but if you're only going to run 2-3 VMs I think it's way
> overkill. If you were going to run a VM server farm with 100s of VMs
> spread across a half-dozen hosts (like we do), then I'd say Vi3 is more up
> your alley. Even though we have Vi3, we will be using Hyper-V at a lot of
> outlying sites and on single server boxes.
>
> I'm running a lot more VMs than just TS on host systems with two dual-core
> Xeons. Our experience has been that you'll run out of memory well before
> CPU, especially with dual quad cores. Even with 30 users on one of our
> TS VMs, the CPU usage is minimal.
>
>