Running WHS in 2008r2 Hyper-V

Bandalo

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,657
I'm currently using a stand-alone WHS for my file server and backup of about 6 client PCs. I'm planning on rebuilding the server and using hardware RAID instead, so I need to switch over to a new OS.

I'm planning on running 2008R2 with the Hyper-V role, and running WHS in a VM. I want to move all the network file shares (mainly music, movies and TV shows streamed to a media player) over to the 2008R2 side. The only thing the WHS VM will be handling is the client PC backups. I have yet to find anything better for network backups/restores that doesn't cost an arm and a leg..

Couple questions if anyone can help..

My server is running an ITX board with an i3 540. It only has one gigabit network port. Will I be taking a huge performance hit on the network by running only one physical interface? I wouldn't expect the WHS to ever hit the network except during backup times. 95% of the traffic will be to the file shares on the 2008R2 server. The board only has 1 PCI-E slot, and it's taken up by the RAID controller.

Second question. How hard is it to backup the WHS VM and the associated VHD? I think my backups only take up around 200-300GB total, so I was planning on just backing up to a removable hard drive every month or so just in case.

Any thoughts on the setup? I've heard WHS will run just fine in a VM, but are there any tips and tricks before I start?
 
I'm planning on the same thing. You should be fine, with the exception of backups, which you mentioned.

It's pretty easy to setup the VM backup through Hyper-V. It's kind of nice to backup all of your stuff to one VHD, then backup that single container to a removable or portable drive.
 
Got the setup done over the weekend. So far it seems solid! The streaming and shares access seems even faster than it did with just WHS running. Even when there are backups going on at the same time. I did have to turn off Tx/rx checksum offloading though...Before I made that change it was NOT smooth.

Now I just need my last hard drive to show up so I can migrate everything over to a nice RAID 5 array. For now it's just running on an old 300GB raptor for the main drive an a 2TB for the shares.
 
Ok, I am wondering why you guys choose to move file sharing to 2008R2.

Isn't WHS is a much better option?

You can mix hard drives of different sizes and keep adding drives to increase capacity as needed. Folder duplication is nice too since you have the option to turn it on only for important files so it doesn't duplicate all files. Also, using WHS doesn't mean you can't use RAID, you can raid internal drivees or use external raid boxes and attached it to your WHS, so you get the benefit of RAID + the ability to easily add more drives.

File management on WHS is a lot simpler, moving large files with the same folder takes no time at all. For example, say your main "videos" folder is 20TB, moving files from a sub-folder to another sub-folder is just a change the the file pointer. With 2008R2 + RAID5/6 setup, you will probably need multiple raid array to have 20TB capacity. Your media content will be distributed across multiple raid boxes. Moving file from one box to another will take much more time.


If I were you, I would setup two WHS servers, one stand-alone and one on the VM. The stand-alone one for media streaming and the VM one for PC backup.
 
Well, WHS is having it's drive extender feature completely removed in the new version (WHS v2 "Vail") So no more mixing hard drive sizes and types with abandon.

WHS v1 is based on 32bit Server 2003, so you're limited in physical RAM to the 3GB limit. Which makes running any VM's for testing or just experimentation a little tough.

Also you can't install any drives larger than 2TB without jumping through a LOT of hoops on WHS v1.

I don't see how file management is any different. They're all just shared folders if you're using a large RAID array. I have 4 1.5TB drives in my setup. Before migrating I had 6TB available, with about 2.5TB used for files + duplication. Switching to RAID5, I have 4.5TB available with about 1.5TB used for files. Not much of a loss, and still plenty of usable space.

If I had 20TB of files, I might feel differently. In my situation, it's a much more flexible solution than WHS I think..

With 2008R2 + WHS in a VM, I get the best of both worlds. All the flexibility of a full version of 2008R2 server, and all the good backup features of WHS.
 
I want to run it in a VM becase I'm planning on building a nice box for Hyper-V and then running many VMs inside of that. WHS, Domain Controller, Threat Management Gateway, etc. It's half for play and half for teaching myself stuff for work.
 
I moved my file sharing to Server 2008 R2 because MS screwed me with Vail expiring and so I moved off WHS V2 a week before it was set to expire.

I am running WHS in VM to get the backups and remote access

DE was too slow for reliable streaming of multiple high bitrate movies due to DE running on a regular basis.


no headaches of having all my data on my WHS anymore.
 
I had a problem where WHS went "poof" and I lost all functionality--fortunately, not the files. It was weird. So, I went to Server 2008 and WHS in a virtual machine strictly for backups, just like the OP. I'm very happy with it, and it makes WHS a little easier to backup the clients (just backup the VM). Now I'm pondering going with a ZFS setup instead of Server 2008, and still keep WHS virtualized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top