1st time trying Server Virtualization.

[eldiet]

So i'm currently running WHS2011 and it works well for what i do. I archive recorded HD TV from Windows Media Center, store and play movies and music, store documents, and client backups.

Current running system hardware
AMD 2.x ghz dual core, (dont remember off hand)
2 or 4 gigs of ram.
2 x 320 gb drives (1 System drive the other a mirror).
5 x 2TB drives in a hardware raid 5 (stores all media, documents and backups)


The problem is I'd like to go to visualization to get more functionality out of the server without the risk of corrupting the core functionality.


I've got new hardware on the way

Intel 2600k (3.4ghz quad core)
mobo (asus i think)
16gigs (2x8 so i can perhaps go to 32 gigs)
all drives will move to new box with same functions.

I'd like to run a few virtual boxes (simultaneously) and admin them via some form of remote desktop.

I'd like to run a 2008r2 for iis and sql, possibly another 2008r2 for playing with sharepoint and exchange. I'd also like to run some *nix distros for playing and possibly specific tasks (torrent box etc...).

I have only done a little research so far. Right now I'm leaning towards VMware Server because of this article. (though it is no longer supported)
http://connecteddigitalworld.com/2011/08/18/how-to-run-vmware-server-on-windows-home-server-2011/3/

Another option is Hyper-V. WHS does not allow you to use Hyper-V in Windows. But I read there is a free version that works as your base OS. Then I could install WHIS on as a VM,) Most info I find seems dated and either to elementary or to advanced for me.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or have suggestions?

Thanks

 

[Budman17r]

Personally go with ESXI 5 it's free and can do everything you want. Using the Vsphere client you can basically have a KVM Remote to each machine. I believe it can do virtualization within it.

 

[eldiet]

Does ESXI 5 install on top of an os or before any os? How do you allocate resources?

Thanks

 

[Dark Shade]

Does ESXI 5 install on top of an os or before any os? How do you allocate resources?

Thanks

It's a baremetal hypervisor, it installs a low-level virtualization server that you connect to with a vSphere client and setup guest machines inside of it. You allocate resources from the vSphere control panel to each machine. You install ESXi right on the hard drive like an operating system.

 

[eldiet]

Am I able to modify resource allocation on the fly?

Also how many VMs can I expect to run on the hardware I am getting?

Thanks for all the info.

 

[extide]

You will be ram limited. If you move to 32gig you will have more flexibility, but assume 2-4GB per vm. That cpu will have plenty of juice.

One thing, be careful with a big raid-5 like that. I would strongly advise you to move to raid 6, or use a bunch of mirrors.

 

[danswartz]

The processor is a little underpowered, but your are WAY low on RAM. I'd think a minimum of 8GB.l

 

[Dark Shade]

Am I able to modify resource allocation on the fly?

Also how many VMs can I expect to run on the hardware I am getting?

Thanks for all the info.

Depends on the resource, but most changes to resources will require the guest OS to at least shut down and restart, as if you were adding in a new card or hard drive to a physical host.

VMs can vary in sizes and speeds, bare minimum allocation of resources would be at least 1 vCPU and probably a gig of RAM, some disk space and virtual network adapter.

 

[eldiet]

When you say allocate 1 vCPU does that translate to 1 core? or can I have more than 4 vCPU's?

Is there any (affordable) VM software out there that allocates resources dynamically? Giving more ram and cpu to the VM that needs it on the fly?


I dont plan on using the Raid for anything but media storage for the WHS. All vm's would be run off the 320gig drive. If that isn't big enough I can add another.

 

[danswartz]

AFAIK, cpu usage should just be left alone - vsphere does a fine job scheduling. Take a guess at RAM usage and go with that. You can oversubscribe memory by a reasonable amount (50% or so, is what I've read), and vsphere can juggle that too, although you'd want to make sure you have vmware tools running in all guests to make this work better.

 

[eldiet]

Is ESXi everyone's best choice? Should I consider anything else?

 

[danswartz]

Depends on what you want to do. Sorry to be terse, but there are quite a few options, and it's really hard to give you a cliff notes version. If you're really that early in the process, I'd recommend some time in google comparing esxi vs virtualbox and etc...

 

[CEpeep]

Is ESXi everyone's best choice? Should I consider anything else?

It depends on your technical knowledge, and the amount of time you want to spend getting everything set up right. VirtualBox is dead simple and can be managed right from the desktop of the host OS. VMWare ESXi requires a separate management client that only runs on Windows (the Linux version of Workstation can also act as a client, but it's not free). Hyper-V is built into Windows Server and the management interface should be familiar to anyone with Windows server admin experience. Depending on your usage habits, you may only need the management interface on occasion for setting up new VMs, or you may use it every day to monitor system health and make tweaks. How about host OS? Do you prefer a bare-metal hypervisor or one that lives on top of an existing host? The big ones to consider are VMWare, VirtualBox, Hyper-V, and Xen/KVM. They're not everything, but if you've looked at those, you have a good idea of what your options are in this space.

 

[eldiet]

How about host OS? Do you prefer a bare-metal hypervisor or one that lives on top of an existing host?

I'm not sure what to say. Before I posted here, I was thinking I'd run something on top of my primary OS (which would be WHS) but I'm guessing that would be a performance hit. If I run a "bare-metal hypervisor" do I need more ram than I have?

Thanks.

 

[Budman17r]

It all depends on the OS's, personally I'm limited to 16 GB, have 8 GB and I can run a few without a perfomance hit, it appears my biggest issue is HD usage, too much going on in one disk, and one Net connection.

 

[Budman17r]

Personally run the WHS in the ESXI box, you'll have more resources to work with instead of just working with what's left (ESXI does a better job at reclaiming memory.

 

[Dark Shade]

I run KVM on CentOS 6 and just use virt-manager to create/delete and ssh to control Linux guests. It's easy for me but it might be a bit daunting for a first time user.

My only gripe with ESXi is some of its drivers weren't compatible with my hardware (my PCI-X AOC SATA card for instance) so I went back to non-virtualization on that host.

 

[madrebel]

Is ESXi everyone's best choice? Should I consider anything else?

xen cloud platform is good. a bit more involved than esxi but otherwise similar with no restrictions.

 

[Tiporaro]

As someone that just started playing with esxi, I can vouch for its overall ease and a great platform to get your feet wet in virtualization. At the very least, load it up on a USB key and you can play with it without too much trouble.

 

[USF-Nealio]

I seem to know more people who prefer using Xen Server over ESXi, including myself. With that being said, I see no real argument between the 2, other than pricing once you step away from the free versions.

 

[-Dragon-]

Most people around here seem gaga over ESXi 5 but, at least for my home uses, I definitely prefer Hyper-V.

HV uses standard windows drivers so can run on pretty much anything, ESXi requires custom drivers and anything non-standard, even if drivers exist, from the sounds of some threads here they're a pain to use. Also there's a thread on the front page about difficulties getting new hardware recognized installed after the fact. Overall +1 for HV for every non ESXi supported piece of hardware you have (and +1 for every upgrade after the fact?)

ESXi updates are handled through non-free management software or have to be performaned manually. HV uses windows updates. +1 for HV

ESXi only supports 32GB RAM max. HV supports up to 1TB, and while late last year/earlier this year this wasn't a huge limit, have you seen some of those new Xeon E5-2600 series boards? 256-768 max RAM capacity with RDIMMs which puts 64-192GB within the realm of affordability. My next server purchase will definitely be a dualy E5-2600 board. +1 for HV at least for me.

Not to say ESXi doesn't have its own plusses, for example HV can only assign 4 virtual CPUs per VM, and ESXi can assign a whole lot more, but you've only got 4 real CPU cores in your target system anyway, adding 4 more hyperthread cores probably won't benefit you much unless you intend to have an encoding VM or such.

ESXi definitely has better linux support than HV 2008 R2, although this is supposedly remedied in server 8. Either way if you're not running linux it doesn't really matter.

Hyper-V doesn't support memory overcommit and server 8 doesn't seem to address this, how much this affects you depends on how many VMs you want to run and how much RAM they need regular access to. Basically just moves memory swapping from the individual VMs to the host.

I'm sure I missed things on both sides and probably got some of the ESXi stuff "kinda wrong", but for my uses and the issues I've read about here I'm pretty pleased with hyper-v over esx right now.

 

[madrebel]

HV uses standard windows drivers so can run on pretty much anything, ESXi requires custom drivers and anything non-standard, even if drivers exist, from the sounds of some threads here they're a pain to use.

really only an issue for non server hardware. there aren't many servers you can buy, even white box, that aren't fully supported.

ESXi updates are handled through non-free management software or have to be performaned manually. HV uses windows updates. +1 for HV

interesting qualification of what 'non free' is or isn't. you can't use windows updates without a license that you purchased.

ESXi only supports 32GB RAM max.

huh?

http://www.vmware.com/support/vsphere5/doc/vsphere-esx-vcenter-server-50-new-features.html

Support for larger systems. vSphere 5.0 supports systems with up to 160 logical CPUs and up to 2TB of RAM.

Not to say ESXi doesn't have its own plusses, for example HV can only assign 4 virtual CPUs per VM, and ESXi can assign a whole lot more

28 more

hyperV sucks sorry, it is pretty much inferior to vmware across the board.

 

[CEpeep]

Support for larger systems. vSphere 5.0 supports systems with up to 160 logical CPUs and up to 2TB of RAM.

You can't use more than 32GB on the free version of ESXi, which is what -Dragon- is getting at. Sure, it's an option to go up to 2TB, but the license pricing makes it impractical for a home/lab setup. If you want to use more than 32GB of RAM without paying for a commercial virtualization system, Hyper-V is a better choice than ESXi. Even in that case, I would still argue that Xen is superior, unless you only want to run Windows guests, as Hyper-V support for anything but Windows NT OSes is extremely poor.

 

[madrebel]

i agree on xen, unless you absolutely need something from vmware IMO go with xen. it works and is free with zero restrictions. however if we're going to talk 'free' then i'm not really sure how hyperV is even in the discussion. unless you're talking about a server 2k8 180 day license and a trial hyperV license. you can download exsi5 for free and use it as long as you want, with limitations of course.

 

[-Dragon-]

Yes I was refering to the free versions of both hyper-v and esxi, and the free hyper-v server does include free automatic updates without having to buy a license for anything.

Also in re: to

hyperV sucks sorry, it is pretty much inferior to vmware across the board.

Yeah, >32GB support for my upcoming dual E5-2600 box without having to pay, support for my TV tuner card, support for my 82579LM by downloading drivers from intel.com instead of "some guy on the forums", automatic updates, and the same 32 CPU support if I use the server 8 beta.

Clearly inferior.

 

[-Dragon-]

i agree on xen, unless you absolutely need something from vmware IMO go with xen. it works and is free with zero restrictions. however if we're going to talk 'free' then i'm not really sure how hyperV is even in the discussion. unless you're talking about a server 2k8 180 day license and a trial hyperV license. you can download exsi5 for free and use it as long as you want, with limitations of course.

Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 - Free to use for as long as you want as well, there's no graphical UI and you have to use the hyper-v console from a windows PC to manage it but the server itself is actually free with no restrictions, you can even use it in a production environment I believe.

 

[eldiet]

Since I will be running on desktop hardware will I have trouble with ESXi?

 

[danswartz]

Not necessarily. What cpu/mobo specifically?

 

[dashpuppy]

Hyper-v is ok, i tried it and used it for a year, but i found that it won't log your traffic or cpu spikes or usage etc etc.

I personally have switched to xen, i love it and works awesome.

 

[CEpeep]

Since I will be running on desktop hardware will I have trouble with ESXi?

Depends on your motherboard. You should ensure your onboard SATA and NIC are compatible with ESXi. SATA controller is almost always supported on Intel hardware, but NIC can be a toss-up. Worst case, you may have to buy a supported Ethernet card for <$20 (single port). 2600K doesn't support VT-d, so consider changing CPUs if it's something you want to use. Other than that, no difference from server hardware.

 

[madrebel]

oh im sorry

support for my TV tuner card

i thought we were talking about the same thing here. obviously you're talking about desktop one off stuff that nobody gives a crap about.

have fun with you hyperV and your tv tuner cards.

 

[-Dragon-]

So I'll take that you agree with me about the whole ">32GB support for my upcoming dual E5-2600 box without having to pay, support for my 82579LM by downloading drivers from intel.com instead of "some guy on the forums", automatic updates, and the same 32 CPU support if I use the server 8 beta." part then.

Anyway, goes to my point that some people around here rabidly and unreasonably just hate hyper-v. I imagine if another company made the exact same product but had different initials than MS, people would be a lot more tolerant of it.

 

[CEpeep]

support for my TV tuner card

How is that even possible? Hyper-V has no PCI-e passthrough. If you are talking about running the TV card on the host OS, that's not relevant since you could do the same thing with VirtualBox, Xen or KVM.

So I'll take that you agree with me about the whole ">32GB support for my upcoming dual E5-2600 box without having to pay, support for my 82579LM by downloading drivers from intel.com instead of "some guy on the forums", automatic updates, and the same 32 CPU support if I use the server 8 beta." part then.

Again, you are comparing a bare-metal hypervisor to one that lives on top of an existing host OS. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[madrebel]

Anyway, goes to my point that some people around here rabidly and unreasonably just hate hyper-v. I imagine if another company made the exact same product but had different initials than MS, people would be a lot more tolerant of it.

if hyperV weren't backed by the microsoft marketing machine it would have been abandoned a long time ago.

the way you use hyperV is the way i use VMware workstation and virtualbox. Something to run various low load small footprint VMs for testing or otherwise messing around with.

you keep comparing hyperV to esxi though which is, as has been pointed out already, a bare metal hypervisor meant to first be extremely stable, hence the limited certified hardware, and also be extremely easy to install on minimal local storage resources (or PXE booted).


you may as well throw in the fact that you can run games on your hyperV system like that is somehow relevant.

hyperV is a joke, the end.

 

[eldiet]

Here's an important question for me. My raid 5 is formatted with ntfs. Do i need to reformat it to use with EEXi? Or can i leave it as is and mount it to the whs runjing in VM? I only want the raid attached to the whs. All other vms can connect to it over the network.