Noah, I initially thought that as well in regards to the video emulation performance. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet that you were using virtualized Windows Server 2003 operating systems. The default setting in Windows Server 2003 is that your display hardware acceleration is turned off. If you set your hardware acceleration to full, then your video emulation performance issues will go away. Personally, I have used both Microsoft and VMWare products, and have found the video performance to be pretty much the same. ~Ben
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Noah Eiger Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server I realize this is now getting a bit OT, but... Deji, I think the fruit distinction is based on the fact that one runs on bare metal and other runs under a host OS. (Or at least that is how I have always thought of them.) Beyond that, I agree there are simply feature comparisons. That said, (and with the caveat that I have not worked with ESX) I find the MS product to be much simpler than VM Server (nee GSX). I started halfway down the path of migrating my MS VMs to VM Server and found it overly complex and the video emulation performance using the VM Ware client was so bad as to be unacceptable. And as to the OP, I have DCs running on MS VS2k5 R2 and have not had any problems. In the situation you describe, Justin, it seems like performance and cost would be the deciding factor. --- nme ________________________________ From: Akomolafe, Deji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:44 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server :) Interesting points, again. Did I remember to say that I am biased? I think so. I expect that I'm going to catch some flaks for what I'm about to write, but ..... These do not make VS and ESX "apples and oranges". VMotion, Host clustering. Different nomenclature, different capabilities, same purpose, Resource allocation guarantee, CPU Resource allocation weight. Superior Networking capabilities. Sure. Does VS have networking capabilities? Of course. Does ESX integrate with AD as well as VS? Does it run on Windows? Support software iSCSI? Live backup and Shadow Copy? (OK, if you count VCB and its proxy). Administration - show of hands, quick - ESX or VS, which is easier and less complex to deploy and administer? Which has easier and faster client deployment option? I swear, I have NOT drunk any kool-aid, but I think people's perceptions of the superiority of ESX over VS is largely driven by a combination of historical trends, myths, marketing and the unavoidable "Winblows Sux" mentality. Since we are on a Windows-centric list here, I do not mind admitting that I do not subscribe to the notion that if it's not Windows, it must be better than Windows. Mind you, Hunter, I am NOT implying that this is where you are coming from, but the reason I asked you to enunciate the reasoning behind your thinking was because I was hoping to hear something I haven't heard before on this issue. VS certainly wasn't as feature-rich as ESX a couple of revs back. The gap is considerably narrowed with what's currently going into VS and what ESX 3.0.1 has today. Will VS catch and surpass ESX in a few months, no. Will it ever catch up, maybe. But, today, if we factor in the cost overlay (in licensing, hardware and administrative values), and discount our preconceived (or received) notions of ESX superiority, and give VS (as of SP1 Beta 2) a fair shake, one would be pleasantly surprised at how narrow the gap really is. To me, these 2 products are all bananas - one is a "just banana" and the other is "organic banana". They are certainly not more "apple and orange" than your convertible and my jalopy are "apple and orange". They are both virtualization tools, and they each serve the same purpose. One is cheap (like, FREE cheap, while giving you liberal Windows licensing terms and flexibility to boot), the other is not. Now, I'm off to find my Teflon :) Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: Coleman, Hunter Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server On the Virtual Infrastructure side: Moving running guests across hosts (vmotion), the network configuration options, lower host overhead, grouping hosts into resource pools and allowing guests to automatically migrate based on allocation guarantees, 4-way SMP guests, 64-bit guests :-> Nothing wrong with Virtual Server, but I see it more on par with VMware Server than ESX/Virtual Infrastructure. ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Interesting points, Hunter. Not to engage in a holy war or something, but would you mind mentioning what makes one of these Orange and the other Apple (the fruit)? No, don't mention 64-bit Guest, thank you very much :)[1] [1]<Grumbling> I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. </grumbling> Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: Coleman, Hunter Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server IMHO, ESX/VM Infrastructure and Virtual Server are like apples and oranges. Yes, they are both virtualization environments, but have vastly different capabilities. VM Infrastructure has a much broader and deeper feature set that does come with added cost and complexity. Regardless, in the context of the original question I'd be concerned about the load Exchange is going to place on the host hardware. How many Exchange users are in the 8 domains, and how many of these would potentially be connecting to the alternate site? Are you going to have GC availability to support Exchange? What other resources at the hotsite might be looking for DC/GC services? I would also be careful about having a configuration at my hotsite that is significantly different from my normal production environment. When things have melted down to the point of failing over to the hotsite, it's not a good time to be pulling out the manuals for your infrastructure because you don't work with it day in and day out. ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server ESX (VMWare) is good - and pricey. And very strict as to hardware specs. And complex to setup and administer. And, I could be wrong on this, NOT (MS)-supported for virtualizing DCs. Virtual Server, on the other hand, is good, not pricey, less picky, more supported (I believe it's actually validated) for DCs virtualization. Plus, the liberal OS licensing scheme is very attractive to me. Yes, I know, VMWare rules the market. Yes, I am biased. Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: Salandra, Justin A. Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 11:57 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server What would you recommend for the following situation. We are thinking of having a hot site where Exchange will be replicated to a remote location. Since Exchange will be remote over the Internet, we will need to have DC's for each domain available in that remote site. (This would all be going across a VPN) I was thinking about placing 8 DC's on a VMWare Infrastructure 3 server Enterprise edition. These DC's would really only be used in the event of a disaster and people started connecting to Exchange up in the remote site. Is VMWare Infrastructure 3 good? What would you use? Justin A. Salandra MCSE Windows 2000 & 2003 Network and Technology Services Manager Catholic Healthcare System 646.505.3681 - office 917.455.0110 - cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<winmail.dat>>
