I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told Exchange and
SQL should not be? Is there anything else?

Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
were perfect candidates for virtualization.

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

"Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told Exchange
>and
> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?

I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?

At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize any of
the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be okay given
proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above in lab settings
with pretty good results, but steer clear of running them in production,
with the exception of small apps that install SQL2005 express.

So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
> Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
> virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
> processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
> were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told Exchange
>>and
>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:

>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>were perfect candidates for virtualization.

I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
in production?
We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still using
Office 97!

"Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
newsb03c4p9qffs4kfbucc3opomhu2q3qk6sj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>
> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:45:25 -0400, "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com>
wrote:

>Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
>in production?

I don't know if VS2005 will have the same "ok" for exchange, etc. as
Hyper-V

>We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still using
>Office 97!
>

That's nothing! :-) I've still got an NT 4 domain running with
Exchange 5.5

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Yes I will be using virtual Server 2005 not Hyper V. So what should I not
virtualize?

"Steve Jain" wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:45:25 -0400, "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
> >in production?
>
> I don't know if VS2005 will have the same "ok" for exchange, etc. as
> Hyper-V
>
> >We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still using
> >Office 97!
> >
>
> That's nothing! :-) I've still got an NT 4 domain running with
> Exchange 5.5
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
>

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:56:29 -0700, Kit <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Yes I will be using virtual Server 2005 not Hyper V. So what should I not
>virtualize?
>
Any reason you're not using Hyper-V?

You can virtualize anything.
What is important is what you're looking for.
Not all MS products are supported under virtualization. If this isn't
important to you, then you can do it. I've got a non-production
Exchange server under VS2005, runs great, but no official support.

also, some things don't virtualize well...for example SQL databases
usually aren't the best due to the amount of hard disk usage, which
really impacts performance.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

That announcement is already out for many products.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
another one somewhere up there as well...

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

"Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
newsb03c4p9qffs4kfbucc3opomhu2q3qk6sj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>
> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.

I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has RTM'd.
It will have:

Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
get loaded on it.
Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.

The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there, but
it's not worth the pain.

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

"Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>
> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize any
> of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be okay
> given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above in lab
> settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running them in
> production, with the exception of small apps that install SQL2005 express.
>
> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>> Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>> to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>> processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>> were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told Exchange
>>>and
>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>
>
>

We finally shutdown our last NT server earlier this year.

"Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
news:gs43c4l5hpkck52r19k3is1fnt7a3tnoso@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:45:25 -0400, "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
>>in production?
>
> I don't know if VS2005 will have the same "ok" for exchange, etc. as
> Hyper-V
>
>>We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still
>>using
>>Office 97!
>>
>
> That's nothing! :-) I've still got an NT 4 domain running with
> Exchange 5.5
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.

Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:evgr8a7DJHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has RTM'd.
>It will have:
>
> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
> get loaded on it.
> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>
> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
> but it's not worth the pain.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
> news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>
>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize any
>> of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be okay
>> given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above in lab
>> settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running them in
>> production, with the exception of small apps that install SQL2005
>> express.
>>
>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>> Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>> to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>> processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>> were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>Exchange and
>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At the
time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What it
does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized solution, is
an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.

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

"dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:%23DxIomEEJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:evgr8a7DJHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>
>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
>> get loaded on it.
>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>
>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
>> news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>
>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be
>>> okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above
>>> in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running
>>> them in production, with the exception of small apps that install
>>> SQL2005 express.
>>>
>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> message news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably
>>>> avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already
>>>> using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL
>>>> installations that were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

The overall answer that was stated above is it depends on the workload of
the server and the type of host hardware resources. Our organization has
160 servers in our Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 environment and 27 in our
Hyper-V environment. Examples of what we have in our Virtual Server
Environment include:

Web Server (Intranet/Internet/Portal etc... approx 20,000 hits a day and not
using hardly any resources)
WINs (Services 35,000 records)
Domain Controllers (We have a mix of hardware and virtual guests)
Medical Applications (low to medium transactional)
SQL (low to medium transactional)
Oracle (low to medium transactional)
Symantec antivirus parent servers (2)

Hardware for Virtual Server 2005 Hosts:
DH585 G2 4 X 2.8Ghz Dual Core, 64 GB of RAM, 4GB Fiber, HP EVA 8000 SAN.

Things to use are the MAPS 3.1 program, Perfmon, and we also use Cacti to do
some short-term tending before and after to see if performance is comparable
after a migration.

If you have lesser hardware then you will need to adjust your expectations
on what you can put into the virtual environment. If you feed your guests
with the best resource you can afford then you will have the best chance at
success in your virtual environment. This is independant of virtualization
provider.

--
Rob McShinsky
http://www.virtuallyaware.net


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:%23xZj4X7DJHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That announcement is already out for many products.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
> another one somewhere up there as well...
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
> newsb03c4p9qffs4kfbucc3opomhu2q3qk6sj@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>>to
>>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>
>> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
>> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
>> http://vpc.essjae.com/
>> I do not work for Microsoft.
>

Thanks. I'm just starting to really grasp what can be done with
virtualization if you have enough server power.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:Og5k8CFEJHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At
> the time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What
> it does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized
> solution, is an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:%23DxIomEEJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:evgr8a7DJHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>>
>>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that
>>> won't get loaded on it.
>>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>>
>>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>>
>>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might
>>>> be okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the
>>>> above in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of
>>>> running them in production, with the exception of small apps that
>>>> install SQL2005 express.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>> message news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably
>>>>> avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already
>>>>> using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL
>>>>> installations that were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

People really don't "get it" yet. And part of that is that we're so used to
living in a 32-bit world, we really don't grasp the vast potential that
64-bit throws at us. I've been running predominantly 64-bit Windows since
the release of Server 2k3 SP1 and XP Professional x64 Edition over three
years ago. When you combine that huge RAM potential with multi-core
processors, there's a LOT you can do. But the limiting factor today is I/O
bandwidth. Virtualization is I/O intensive, and sticking a couple of big
SATA drives on a box just doesn't cut it.

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

"dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:%23DOf2ZFEJHA.4904@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I'm just starting to really grasp what can be done with
> virtualization if you have enough server power.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:Og5k8CFEJHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At
>> the time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What
>> it does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized
>> solution, is an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23DxIomEEJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> message news:evgr8a7DJHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>>>
>>>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>>>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>>>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that
>>>> won't get loaded on it.
>>>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>>>
>>>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>>>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>>>
>>>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might
>>>>> be okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the
>>>>> above in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of
>>>>> running them in production, with the exception of small apps that
>>>>> install SQL2005 express.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>>> message news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd
>>>>>> probably avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that
>>>>>> was already using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen
>>>>>> lots of SQL installations that were perfect candidates for
>>>>>> virtualization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

"If you feed your guests with the best resource you can afford then you will
have the best chance at success in your virtual environment."

I absolutely agree.

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

"Rob McShinsky" <UseGroup@Group.com.> wrote in message
news:uUTzSGFEJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The overall answer that was stated above is it depends on the workload of
> the server and the type of host hardware resources. Our organization has
> 160 servers in our Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 environment and 27 in our
> Hyper-V environment. Examples of what we have in our Virtual Server
> Environment include:
>
> Web Server (Intranet/Internet/Portal etc... approx 20,000 hits a day and
> not using hardly any resources)
> WINs (Services 35,000 records)
> Domain Controllers (We have a mix of hardware and virtual guests)
> Medical Applications (low to medium transactional)
> SQL (low to medium transactional)
> Oracle (low to medium transactional)
> Symantec antivirus parent servers (2)
>
> Hardware for Virtual Server 2005 Hosts:
> DH585 G2 4 X 2.8Ghz Dual Core, 64 GB of RAM, 4GB Fiber, HP EVA 8000 SAN.
>
> Things to use are the MAPS 3.1 program, Perfmon, and we also use Cacti to
> do some short-term tending before and after to see if performance is
> comparable after a migration.
>
> If you have lesser hardware then you will need to adjust your
> expectations on what you can put into the virtual environment. If you
> feed your guests with the best resource you can afford then you will have
> the best chance at success in your virtual environment. This is
> independant of virtualization provider.
>
> --
> Rob McShinsky
> http://www.virtuallyaware.net
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23xZj4X7DJHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That announcement is already out for many products.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>> another one somewhere up there as well...
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
>> newsb03c4p9qffs4kfbucc3opomhu2q3qk6sj@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>>> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>>>to
>>>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>
>>> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
>>> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
>>> http://vpc.essjae.com/
>>> I do not work for Microsoft.
>>
>

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:17:36 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:

>That announcement is already out for many products.
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>another one somewhere up there as well...

Aww, Charlie, now you spoiled my surprises for Monday

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Ah, shucks. Didn't mean to spoil it for you.<G>

So, are you in Bellevue/Redmond Monday? If so, I look forward to meeting
you. I'm coming down for it.

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

"Steve Jain" <noreply.-@-.essjae.com> wrote in message
news:1os5c4dh3brebhj36v3bb6tpp6c2ra1u8d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:17:36 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>>That announcement is already out for many products.
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>>another one somewhere up there as well...
>
> Aww, Charlie, now you spoiled my surprises for Monday
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.

Your right about people not getting it yet, I just set up an HP DL580 G5, 4
quad core processors, 24G memory, 10 NICs, connected to an HP EVA SAN via FC
HBAs. Have 8 production servers running on it and the host machine is still
idling. The rest of the Admins still look at me funny, and have their office
pool running on when the host will crash and burn and this "virtualization
experiment" will die and I'll go back to real world.

I did a little show and tell for them in our morning meeting the other day,
setup and configured 2 new servers in under 10 minutes. It might have
actually turned the light on for a few of them, one wanted to set one up
himself after the meeting, and the other one is now talking about a VM
running SQL 2000, hence my question earlier. I'll be honest, with SQL I
prefer multiple processors to handle the queries then I can give them with a
VM.


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:esH%23CNGEJHA.1596@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> People really don't "get it" yet. And part of that is that we're so used
> to living in a 32-bit world, we really don't grasp the vast potential that
> 64-bit throws at us. I've been running predominantly 64-bit Windows since
> the release of Server 2k3 SP1 and XP Professional x64 Edition over three
> years ago. When you combine that huge RAM potential with multi-core
> processors, there's a LOT you can do. But the limiting factor today is I/O
> bandwidth. Virtualization is I/O intensive, and sticking a couple of big
> SATA drives on a box just doesn't cut it.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:%23DOf2ZFEJHA.4904@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I'm just starting to really grasp what can be done with
>> virtualization if you have enough server power.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:Og5k8CFEJHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At
>>> the time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian.
>>> What it does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized
>>> solution, is an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23DxIomEEJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>> message news:evgr8a7DJHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>>>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>>>>
>>>>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>>>>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>>>>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that
>>>>> won't get loaded on it.
>>>>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>>>>
>>>>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it
>>>>> there, but it's not worth the pain.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OlFA8c4DJHA.4588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>>>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>>>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might
>>>>>> be okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the
>>>>>> above in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of
>>>>>> running them in production, with the exception of small apps that
>>>>>> install SQL2005 express.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:uvB24q3DJHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd
>>>>>>> probably avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that
>>>>>>> was already using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've
>>>>>>> seen lots of SQL installations that were perfect candidates for
>>>>>>> virtualization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Kit" <Kit@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:340218F9-8C57-4A32-8D60-FBBE3A5AE0DE@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

re: SQL and multiple processors - With Hyper-V, you can give your child
partitions (guest OSs) up to 4 procs each.

That 580 sounds like a very nice box indeed. And yes, I'll bet it's just
loafing along.

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

"Tim Walsh" <tmwalsh@aep.com> wrote in message
news:OWefHaOEJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Your right about people not getting it yet, I just set up an HP DL580 G5,
> 4 quad core processors, 24G memory, 10 NICs, connected to an HP EVA SAN
> via FC HBAs. Have 8 production servers running on it and the host machine
> is still idling. The rest of the Admins still look at me funny, and have
> their office pool running on when the host will crash and burn and this
> "virtualization experiment" will die and I'll go back to real world.
>
> I did a little show and tell for them in our morning meeting the other
> day, setup and configured 2 new servers in under 10 minutes. It might have
> actually turned the light on for a few of them, one wanted to set one up
> himself after the meeting, and the other one is now talking about a VM
> running SQL 2000, hence my question earlier. I'll be honest, with SQL I