Re: New to virtualization

[Andrew S. Baker]

Indeed.

* *

*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…

*



On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Brian Desmond wrote:

>  *I’d highly recommend a strong look at the NetApp offering. What they
> have to offer is (in my opinion) very strong and the pricing is
> competitive. Functionality wise I’ve not seen a better offering, especially
> when you factor in the application level integration they have. *
>
> * *
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Brian Desmond*
>
> *br...@briandesmond.com*
>
> * *
>
> *w – 312.625.1438 | c   – 312.731.3132*
>
> * *
>
> *From:* Robert Cato [mailto:cato.rob...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:43 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
>  
>
> We priced NetApp and EMC a couple of years back and they were very close
> in price, but NetApp had better features.
>
>  
>
> The features we found valueable were:
> Hybrid - SAN and NAS in one box. Using it as our file server.
>
> Deduplication - We are getting over 40% space savings on file server files
> and 70% on virtual machine files (VMware)
>
> Replication - Only block level changes get pushed over the wire.
>
> Backups - SMVI (snap manager for virtual infrastructure) is fantastic.
> Takes snapshot of the VM, takes snapshot of the storage, then rolls back
> the vm snapshot. Takes maybe 20 minutes for ~25 servers. You can then do a
> restore or just mount the backup and extract single file(s).
>
>
> I have not looked at the EMC offerings in a while, maybe they offer
> similar features now.
>
>  
>
> Robert
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Chinnery, Paul  wrote:***
> *
>
> Why did you choose Netapp?  I'm looking to budget for a replacement SAN in
> the next or so.  Currently, we're using a EMC CX500.
> We're also looking into VDI, which would necessitate a new SAN due to my
> CX500 basically being maxed out on drives.  I've got a price on an EMC
> VNX5300 but the consultant said he could also price out a Netapp.  (I've
> also heard some good things about Dell's Compellent line.)
>
>  
>
> *From:* Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:43 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I'm just in the middle up upgrading from an 4 year old HP EVA 4000 to an
> $130k NetApp solution, this includes 2 new DL380 G7 192 GB of ram dual
> X5650 processors and yes no HD’s just SD for the VMware. AI also got 2
> NetApp shelves FAS-2240 production with 24 * 600GB Drives and the DR with
> 24 * 1Tb drives and an HP Tape loader including installation and setup
> services but I’m re-using my fibe switches and also re-using older ML370
> for my DR. DE duplication has already given me back 1.3Tb and counting.***
> *
>
>  
>
> I’m very impressed.
>
> Stefan
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>
> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>
> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
> that VMware would run off a USB stick???****
>
> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>
> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
> hosts?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
>  ****
>
> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>
>  
>
> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
> guarantee it.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link 
> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
> on load balancing not licensing.
>
>
>
>  

Re: New to virtualization

[Robert Cato]

We priced NetApp and EMC a couple of years back and they were very close in
price, but NetApp had better features.

The features we found valueable were:
Hybrid - SAN and NAS in one box. Using it as our file server.
Deduplication - We are getting over 40% space savings on file server files
and 70% on virtual machine files (VMware)
Replication - Only block level changes get pushed over the wire.
Backups - SMVI (snap manager for virtual infrastructure) is fantastic.
Takes snapshot of the VM, takes snapshot of the storage, then rolls back
the vm snapshot. Takes maybe 20 minutes for ~25 servers. You can then do a
restore or just mount the backup and extract single file(s).

I have not looked at the EMC offerings in a while, maybe they offer similar
features now.

Robert
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Chinnery, Paul  wrote:

> Why did you choose Netapp?  I'm looking to budget for a replacement SAN in
> the next or so.  Currently, we're using a EMC CX500.
> We're also looking into VDI, which would necessitate a new SAN due to my
> CX500 basically being maxed out on drives.  I've got a price on an EMC
> VNX5300 but the consultant said he could also price out a Netapp.  (I've
> also heard some good things about Dell's Compellent line.)
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:43 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> I'm just in the middle up upgrading from an 4 year old HP EVA 4000 to an
> $130k NetApp solution, this includes 2 new DL380 G7 192 GB of ram dual
> X5650 processors and yes no HD’s just SD for the VMware. AI also got 2
> NetApp shelves FAS-2240 production with 24 * 600GB Drives and the DR with
> 24 * 1Tb drives and an HP Tape loader including installation and setup
> services but I’m re-using my fibe switches and also re-using older ML370
> for my DR. DE duplication has already given me back 1.3Tb and counting.***
> *
>
>  
>
> I’m very impressed.
>
> Stefan
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>
> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>
> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
> that VMware would run off a USB stick???
>
> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>
> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
> hosts?****
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>
>  
>
> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
> guarantee it.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link 
> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
> on load balancing not licensing.
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
> wrote:
>
> No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:*
> ***
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
> 
>
>  
>
> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
> enterprise licenses.
>
>  
>
> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
> diagram.
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  ***

Re: New to virtualization

[Stefan Jafs]

Strictly on the recommendation of my consultant, he is the one that
installed the HP EVA 4 year ago but he is now installing NetApp, his group
has installed 160 NetApp’s in Canada in the last 1-1/2 years, he is very
impressed with NetApp and he has good experience with Dell, IBM, HP etc.
Stefan

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Chinnery, Paul  wrote:

> Why did you choose Netapp?  I'm looking to budget for a replacement SAN in
> the next or so.  Currently, we're using a EMC CX500.
> We're also looking into VDI, which would necessitate a new SAN due to my
> CX500 basically being maxed out on drives.  I've got a price on an EMC
> VNX5300 but the consultant said he could also price out a Netapp.  (I've
> also heard some good things about Dell's Compellent line.)
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:43 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> I'm just in the middle up upgrading from an 4 year old HP EVA 4000 to an
> $130k NetApp solution, this includes 2 new DL380 G7 192 GB of ram dual
> X5650 processors and yes no HD’s just SD for the VMware. AI also got 2
> NetApp shelves FAS-2240 production with 24 * 600GB Drives and the DR with
> 24 * 1Tb drives and an HP Tape loader including installation and setup
> services but I’m re-using my fibe switches and also re-using older ML370
> for my DR. DE duplication has already given me back 1.3Tb and counting.***
> *
>
>  
>
> I’m very impressed.
>
> Stefan
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>
> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>
> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
> that VMware would run off a USB stick???
>
> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>
> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
> hosts?****
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>
>  
>
> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
> guarantee it.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link 
> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
> on load balancing not licensing.
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
> wrote:
>
> No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:*
> ***
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
> 
>
>  
>
> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
> enterprise licenses.
>
>  
>
> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
> diagram.
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on
> 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a
> switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have
> to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter,
> or some oddball combination of single licenses and enterprise
> licenses (DAMHIKT).
>
>  
>
> Someone correct me if I'

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thx

I actually did bring that up... and they said for $30 you grab a few
extras to have on hand.

 

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

one thing to remember about USB memory sticks, they have a finite life.
A limited number of write cycles, you use them as a system drive with
swap/paging and primary temp folders, and you'll find out how quickly
they will start to fail.

Ask the vendor how they support/warranty the drive failures ...

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.

One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.

They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives
and that VMware would run off a USB stick???

This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?

What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
hosts?

 

 

 

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a
virtualisation solution and not want to add more VM's,

 

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I
guarantee it.

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding
was incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any
event, I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...
Or it may not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can
move the guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand
guestimate based on load balancing not licensing.



 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
wrote:

No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing
guide:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A0
9A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing
%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

 

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
enterprise licenses.

 

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a
diagram.

 

Cheers

Ken

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs
on 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and
do a switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically,
you have to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or
Datacenter, or some oddball combination of single licenses and
enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to
your response in about 4-6 hours.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they
can-I just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

 

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is
only running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers
for patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual
server licenses for those VMs.

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

 

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.
Of course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but
the most extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

 

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you
can suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.


ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...

 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do
you lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers
were down instead?

 

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with
three, run datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs
each.  That also gives yo

RE: New to virtualization

[Chinnery, Paul]

Why did you choose Netapp?  I'm looking to budget for a replacement SAN in the 
next or so.  Currently, we're using a EMC CX500.
We're also looking into VDI, which would necessitate a new SAN due to my CX500 
basically being maxed out on drives.  I've got a price on an EMC VNX5300 but 
the consultant said he could also price out a Netapp.  (I've also heard some 
good things about Dell's Compellent line.)

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I'm just in the middle up upgrading from an 4 year old HP EVA 4000 to an $130k 
NetApp solution, this includes 2 new DL380 G7 192 GB of ram dual X5650 
processors and yes no HD's just SD for the VMware. AI also got 2 NetApp shelves 
FAS-2240 production with 24 * 600GB Drives and the DR with 24 * 1Tb drives and 
an HP Tape loader including installation and setup services but I'm re-using my 
fibe switches and also re-using older ML370 for my DR. DE duplication has 
already given me back 1.3Tb and counting.

I'm very impressed.

Stefan

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:
I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and that 
VMware would run off a USB stick???
This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?
What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the hosts?



From: Paul Hutchings 
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk<mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk>]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a virtualisation 
solution and not want to add more VM's,

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I 
guarantee it.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was 
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event, I 
think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may not 
be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the guests to 
the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based on load 
balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can supp

Re: New to virtualization

[Stefan Jafs]

I'm just in the middle up upgrading from an 4 year old HP EVA 4000 to an
$130k NetApp solution, this includes 2 new DL380 G7 192 GB of ram dual
X5650 processors and yes no HD’s just SD for the VMware. AI also got 2
NetApp shelves FAS-2240 production with 24 * 600GB Drives and the DR with
24 * 1Tb drives and an HP Tape loader including installation and setup
services but I’m re-using my fibe switches and also re-using older ML370
for my DR. DE duplication has already given me back 1.3Tb and counting.


I’m very impressed.

Stefan

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>
> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>
> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
> that VMware would run off a USB stick???
>
> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>
> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
> hosts?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>
> ** **
>
> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
> guarantee it.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link 
> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
> on load balancing not licensing.
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
> wrote:
>
> No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:*
> ***
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
> 
>
>  
>
> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
> enterprise licenses.
>
>  
>
> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
> diagram.
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on
> 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a
> switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have
> to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter,
> or some oddball combination of single licenses and enterprise
> licenses (DAMHIKT).
>
>  
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
> And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your
> response in about 4-6 hours.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. <
> mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu> wrote:
>
> And I’m not familiar with the HP hardware, so it’s very possible they
> can—I just didn’t see anything about clustering in the original post.
>
>  
>
> Why it’s important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
> clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
> licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only
> running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for
> patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual server
> licenses for those VMs.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I have VM hosts at hom

RE: New to virtualization

[Chinnery, Paul]

Yup.  We have 5 HP hosts and each one boots off a USB.  And, yes, I was 
surprised when the installer told me that.

From: Gary Slinger [mailto:gary.slin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Speed. Very common.

From: "David Mazzaccaro" 
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:50:19 -0400
To: NT System Admin Issues
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and that 
VMware would run off a USB stick???
This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?
What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the hosts?



From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a virtualisation 
solution and not want to add more VM's,

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I 
guarantee it.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was 
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event, I 
think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may not 
be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the guests to 
the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based on load 
balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of 
course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most 
extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you can 
suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do you 
lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers were down 
instead?

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with three, run 
datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

I have a couple of guests on local storage, is what I meant to say.  All my
hosts have local storage.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jonathan Link wrote:

> This could work.  I like local disk storage so I can easily move an ISO
> library to the hosts.  What's outlined is certainly viable.
> Once the host is booted, it doesn't really rely on local storage in a SAN
> environment, as the guests reside on the SAN.
> I have a couple of hosts on local storage, but these are low priority or
> something I'm testing.  Local storage gives you flexibility.  I can restore
> a VM and some data to a host if the SAN were to become unavailable.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
>> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>>
>> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>>
>> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
>> that VMware would run off a USB stick???
>>
>> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>>
>> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
>> hosts?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
>> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
>> guarantee it.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jonathan Link 
>> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>>
>> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
>> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
>> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
>> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
>> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
>> on load balancing not licensing.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
>> 
>>
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
>> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
>> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
>> enterprise licenses.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
>> diagram.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>>
>>  
>>
>> It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on
>> 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a
>> switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have
>> to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter,
>> or some oddball combination of single licenses and enterprise
>> licenses (DAMHIKT).
>>
>>  
>>
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
>> And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your
>> response in about 4-6 hours.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. <
>> mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu> wrote:
>>
>> And I’m not familiar with the HP hardware, so it’s very possible they
>> can—I just didn’t see anything about clustering in the original post.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Why it’s important is one thing MS had told us is if you are plann

RE: New to virtualization

[John Cook]

The three hosts is a reasonable high availability tactic, if one fails the 
other two should (if sized correctly) still be able to run the guests. IDK 
about running off a USB drive (seems like a point of failure) but it can be 
done. We just provisioned 3 new ESXi 5 hosts with a single small enterprise 
class  SSD drive, no mirror needed. Installing a fresh clean copy of ESXi takes 
very little time and if you have a version that's capable of doing host 
profiles then it's trivial. We just keep a spare drive on the shelf in case we 
have an emergency issue that our 4 hr parts support can't cover.

 John W. Cook
Network Operations Manager
Partnership For Strong Families
5950 NW 1st Place
Gainesville, Fl 32607
Office (352) 244-1610
Cell (352) 215-6944
MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, CompTIA A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:50 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and that 
VMware would run off a USB stick???
This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?
What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the hosts?



From: Paul Hutchings 
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a virtualisation 
solution and not want to add more VM's,

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I 
guarantee it.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was 
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event, I 
think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may not 
be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the guests to 
the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based on load 
balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of 
course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most 
extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you can 
suffer a failure

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

This could work.  I like local disk storage so I can easily move an ISO
library to the hosts.  What's outlined is certainly viable.
Once the host is booted, it doesn't really rely on local storage in a SAN
environment, as the guests reside on the SAN.
I have a couple of hosts on local storage, but these are low priority or
something I'm testing.  Local storage gives you flexibility.  I can restore
a VM and some data to a host if the SAN were to become unavailable.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
>
> One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
>
> They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and
> that VMware would run off a USB stick???
>
> This sounds pretty cheesy to me… is this common practice?
>
> What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
> hosts?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> The reality here is that you’re not going to spend $130k on a
> virtualisation solution and *not* want to add more VM’s,
>
> ** **
>
> Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go – you’ll make use of it I
> guarantee it.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link 
> [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* 15 March 2012 14:03
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
> incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
> I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
> not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
> guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
> on load balancing not licensing.
>
>
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
> wrote:
>
> No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:*
> ***
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
> 
>
>  
>
> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
> enterprise licenses.
>
>  
>
> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
> diagram.
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>  
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on
> 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a
> switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have
> to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter,
> or some oddball combination of single licenses and enterprise
> licenses (DAMHIKT).
>
>  
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
> And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your
> response in about 4-6 hours.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. <
> mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu> wrote:
>
> And I’m not familiar with the HP hardware, so it’s very possible they
> can—I just didn’t see anything about clustering in the original post.
>
>  
>
> Why it’s important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
> clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
> licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only
> running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for
> patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual server
> licenses for those VMs.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.
>
>  
>

RE: New to virtualization

[Damien Solodow]

Yep, ESXi can run off a USB flash drive or a SD card. It's fully supported by 
VMware and often by the vendor as well (I know HP does).
There are a few caveats such as needing a location for scratch space, and a 
couple of other similar things.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:50 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.
One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.
They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives and that 
VMware would run off a USB stick???
This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?
What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the hosts?



From: Paul Hutchings 
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a virtualisation 
solution and not want to add more VM's,

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I 
guarantee it.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was 
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event, I 
think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may not 
be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the guests to 
the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based on load 
balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of 
course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most 
extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you can 
suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do you 
lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers were down 
instead?

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with three, run 
d

Re: New to virtualization

[Gary Slinger]

Speed.  Very common.  

-Original Message-
From: "David Mazzaccaro" 
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:50:19 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.

One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.

They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives
and that VMware would run off a USB stick???

This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?

What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
hosts?

 

 

 

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a
virtualisation solution and not want to add more VM's,

 

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I
guarantee it.

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding
was incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any
event, I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...
Or it may not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can
move the guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand
guestimate based on load balancing not licensing.



 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
wrote:

No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing
guide:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A0
9A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing
%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

 

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
enterprise licenses.

 

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a
diagram.

 

Cheers

Ken

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs
on 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and
do a switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically,
you have to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or
Datacenter, or some oddball combination of single licenses and
enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to
your response in about 4-6 hours.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they
can-I just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

 

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is
only running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers
for patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual
server licenses for those VMs.

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

 

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.
Of course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but
the most extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

 

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you
can suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.


ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...

 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do
you lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers
were down instead?

 

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with
three, run datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs
each.  That also gives you the ability to spin up test servers, etc, as
you mentioned.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exch

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

I am still researching and meeting w/ vendors.

One thing that has just come up w/ a particular vendor.

They are telling me that they would put in 3 hosts, w/ no hard drives
and that VMware would run off a USB stick???

This sounds pretty cheesy to me... is this common practice?

What are the pros/cons to USB stick vs a pair of mirrored drives on the
hosts?

 

 

 

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a
virtualisation solution and not want to add more VM's,

 

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I
guarantee it.

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding
was incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any
event, I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...
Or it may not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can
move the guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand
guestimate based on load balancing not licensing.



 

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
wrote:

No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing
guide:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A0
9A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing
%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

 

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
enterprise licenses.

 

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a
diagram.

 

Cheers

Ken

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs
on 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and
do a switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically,
you have to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or
Datacenter, or some oddball combination of single licenses and
enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to
your response in about 4-6 hours.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they
can-I just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

 

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is
only running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers
for patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual
server licenses for those VMs.

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

 

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.
Of course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but
the most extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

 

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you
can suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.


ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...

 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L.
 wrote:

I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do
you lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers
were down instead?

 

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with
three, run datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs
each.  That also gives you the ability to spin up test servers, etc, as
you mentioned.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would ho

RE: New to virtualization

[Paul Hutchings]

The reality here is that you're not going to spend $130k on a virtualisation 
solution and not want to add more VM's,

Honestly, just add DataCenter from the get-go - you'll make use of it I 
guarantee it.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 March 2012 14:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was 
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event, I 
think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may not 
be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the guests to 
the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based on load 
balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of 
course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most 
extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you can 
suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do you 
lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers were down 
instead?

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with three, run 
datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs each.  That also gives 
you the ability to spin up test servers, etc, as you mentioned.

From: David Mazzaccaro 
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com<mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each 

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

I admit it was a while back, it may have changed, or my understanding was
incorrect.  Or someone told me that and I read it that way.  In any event,
I think 12 total servers for his environment may be a bit low...  Or it may
not be.  With Datacenter licensing, if he loses a host, he can move the
guests to the other machines and do some back of the hand guestimate based
on load balancing not licensing.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

>  No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
> 
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf
> 
>
> ** **
>
> You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided
> that no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise
> license. For more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more)
> enterprise licenses.
>
> ** **
>
> Check out page 8 on the document above – has this exact example in a
> diagram.
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on
> 3 hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a
> switch, you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have
> to move all 3 from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter,
> or some oddball combination of single licenses and enterprise
> licenses (DAMHIKT).
>
>  
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.
> And I prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your
> response in about 4-6 hours.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. <
> mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu> wrote:
>
> And I’m not familiar with the HP hardware, so it’s very possible they
> can—I just didn’t see anything about clustering in the original post.
>
>  
>
> Why it’s important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on
> clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with
> licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only
> running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for
> patching).  That is of course, unless you own separate individual server
> licenses for those VMs.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.
>
>  
>
> At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of
> course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most
> extreme workloads, this is probably doable.
>
>  
>
> If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you
> can suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.
> 
>
> *ASB*
>
> *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*
>
> *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…*
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L. <
> mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu> wrote:
>
> I don’t see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do
> you lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers were
> down instead?
>
>  
>
> Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with
> three, run datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs each.
> That also gives you the ability to spin up test servers, etc, as you
> mentioned.
>
>  
>
> *From:* David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is th

RE: New to virtualization

[David Lum]

I break out by general function when possible - I have AV and patching on the 
same server, but SMS is on its own. One loose rule (I'll bet you guys 
consciously or unconsciously do the same) is "impact of reboot", as in, if a 
given server can be rebooted without any immediate user impact (SMS server), I 
try to put other functions on that same box. Same goes for used-by-department 
stuff, etc.

The fewer people I can impact with a reboot the better and, conveniently, 
working towards better business resiliency generally leads to a better 
configuration on that as well.

Dave


From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

You'll also want to avoid sprawl... The happy medium will depend on many 
factors, but I rarely end up with 1 for 1 functions except for the largest 
organizations.

There are always other considerations, such as AV, patch management, etc.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Jon Harris 
mailto:jk.har...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Personal opinion here but you have way too much stuff on that primary DC 
comparing it to what I would normally do I would really make that DC a) 
redundant, b) at least 5 additional servers.  I never put file shares on 
anything but by itself and would do the same thing for each of the management 
servers (WSUS, GFI, but most especially Symantec).  I really hated having 
Symantec on with anything else it always was needing or doing something that I 
really did not like.

Jon
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:
David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate the 
tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you really have?  Or 
are all those servers only doing one task, already?
Well, my first Domain Controller (up until last week, was my ONLY DC) is doing 
all this:
Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
Domain Controller (holds all 5 FSMO roles)
Global Catalog
DNS
WSUS
File Shares (My Documents redirection, all shared drives)
GFI Vipre Antimalware server
Symantec Backup Exec 10d

The remaining boxes are pretty much dedicated:
BES (dedicated)
OWA (dedicated)
Exchange 2003 (dedicated)
3 Citrix 4.0 servers (dedicated)
SCO UNIX billing server (dedicated)
MAS200 (also Citrix licensing server, web interface server, terminal services 
profile storage)
Document imaging (also my 2nd DC, and print server)




From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:49 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even accounting for 
the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The ability to add and move 
servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a a much more robust environment.

When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible for 
only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting additional 
duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.

David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate the 
tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you really have?  Or 
are all those servers only doing one task, already?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith 
mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org>> wrote:

"However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs? "

Datacenter is licensed per CPU - those are dual CPU servers so you would need 6 
Datacenter licenses.

From: David Mazzaccaro 
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com<mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above

RE: New to virtualization

[Ken Schaefer]

No this is incorrect. Check the Microsoft Windows Server licensing guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/D/9/0D9DDF52-A855-487B-9B74-5A09A9389551/Windows%20Server%20System%20Center%20and%20Forefront%20Pricing%20and%20Licensing%20Guide.pdf

You can move individual VOSE licenses between Enterprise Hosts, provided that 
no host ends up exceeding the 1 POSE + 4 VOSE limit per enterprise license. For 
more than 4 VOSEs on a physical host, you need 2 (or more) enterprise licenses.

Check out page 8 on the document above - has this exact example in a diagram.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

It's even a more (unenforcebly) stringent than that.  If you run 4 VMs on 3 
hosts with enterprise server on each host, you power down two and do a switch, 
you're in a licensing violation situation.  Technically, you have to move all 3 
from one host to another.  So single licensing or Datacenter, or some oddball 
combination of single licenses and enterprise licenses (DAMHIKT).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I read the license.  And I 
prefer to play it straight/conservative.  I'll look forward to your response in 
about 4-6 hours.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the HP hardware, so it's very possible they can-I 
just didn't see anything about clustering in the original post.

Why it's important is one thing MS had told us is if you are planning on 
clustering, in an environment like this, you are out of compliance with 
licensing as soon as you migrate the 5th VM over to a server that is only 
running Enterprise edition (such as to down one of the 3 servers for patching). 
 That is of course, unless you own separate individual server licenses for 
those VMs.

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com<mailto:asbz...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:50 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I have VM hosts at home that can support 6-8 hosts easily.

At the office, we have hosts that can support 15-20 VMs pretty easily.  Of 
course, this depends on the workload of the boxes, but for all but the most 
extreme workloads, this is probably doable.

If you build each host to support 30-40% more VMs than normal, then you can 
suffer a failure of one of them without great difficulty.
ASB

http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker

Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market...


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Miller Bonnie L. 
mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu>> wrote:
I don't see any mention of failover clustering.  Right now, how much do you 
lose if one server is down?  How much would you lose if 4 servers were down 
instead?

Just a thought, but you could add another host server, or stick with three, run 
datacenter, and build them with enough guts to run 6 VMs each.  That also gives 
you the ability to spin up test servers, etc, as you mentioned.

From: David Mazzaccaro 
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com<mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I w

Re: New to virtualization

[Jon Harris]

Personal opinion here but you have way too much stuff on that primary DC
comparing it to what I would normally do I would really make that DC a)
redundant, b) at least 5 additional servers.  I never put file shares on
anything but by itself and would do the same thing for each of the
management servers (WSUS, GFI, but most especially Symantec).  I really
hated having Symantec on with anything else it always was needing or doing
something that I really did not like.

Jon

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate
> the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
> really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?
>
> Well, my first Domain Controller (up until last week, was my ONLY DC) is
> doing all this:
>
> Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
>
> Domain Controller (holds all 5 FSMO roles)
>
> Global Catalog
>
> DNS
>
> WSUS 
>
> File Shares (My Documents redirection, all shared drives)
>
> GFI Vipre Antimalware server
>
> Symantec Backup Exec 10d 
>
> ** **
>
> The remaining boxes are pretty much dedicated:
>
> BES (dedicated)
>
> OWA (dedicated)
>
> Exchange 2003 (dedicated)
>
> 3 Citrix 4.0 servers (dedicated)
>
> SCO UNIX billing server (dedicated)
>
> MAS200 (also Citrix licensing server, web interface server, terminal
> services profile storage)
>
> Document imaging (also my 2nd DC, and print server)
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:49 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even accounting
> for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The ability to add and
> move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a a much more robust
> environment.
>
>  
>
> When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
> for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
> additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.
>
>  
>
> David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate
> the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
> really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith 
> wrote:
>
> “However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
> increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? “
>
> Datacenter is licensed per CPU – those are dual CPU servers so you would
> need 6 Datacenter licenses.
>
>  
>
> *From:* David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the
> 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  **
> **
>
> Is the net app a decent ap

RE: New to virtualization

[Ziots, Edward]

Also, before you start planning DR, you might want to see what the
business says needs to be up and how quickly ( RTO) before, that will
dictate what you will probably have to replicate to another DC or
offsite.  

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

CISSP, Security +, Network +

Security Engineer

Lifespan Organization

ezi...@lifespan.org

 

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

If you are looking at DR and replication DEFINITELY <- notice big
capital bold letters there :) look at the costs involved with each
vendor for doing storage level replication. 

 

Some of the vendors costs can (and will) make you wince, not to mention
the fact that with most vendors you're essentially stuck paying for a
second storage array which in an ideal world you'll never actually use.

 

If you have a remote office I'll echo again that you should check out
the Virtual SAN appliances as they will do all the stuff that the
hardware appliances do, but at your remote office(s) you can just drop
in a VM on a half-decent server rather than needing another $20k array
and $10k of replication licenses.

 

You can of course do VM level replication using things like SRM or
Veeam, it's probably lower cost, but it adds another layer of software
into the mix depending what you're planning on doing for backup.

 

Paul 



From: David Mazzaccaro [david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: 14 March 2012 12:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Haven't discussed clustering yet.

I will probably look at a DR planning first? co-location or replicating
to another of my offices maybe?

 

WOW - I just noticed all the replies trickling in due to the delays of
this list.

THANKS EVERYONE!  This really turned into a great thread, w/ tons of
info.

 

 

 

From: Art DeKneef [mailto:art.dekn...@cox.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

Good topic David as I'm planning for a similar environment so I am
interested in the same answers. Using Hyper-V and Remote Desktop
Services, main office and remote office with 6 servers and ~100+ people.

 

Quick answers to some of the questions.

 

Most recommend at least one physical box that is a DC, DNS, DHCP and
management server. If everything happens to be off at the same time
having this physical box online first solves issues of no DC being
available. Yes you can schedule the VMs to start in a certain order but
are all the other pieces running also.

 

Exchange 2010 is supported being virtualized. I have no experience with
Citrix but I'm sure Webster will be able to answer the question.
Additional DCs can be virtualized.

 

Only you can answer whether 7 TB of storage is enough. How much do you
have now? What is expected growth rate? How expandable is the SAN?

 

Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise includes the ability to run up to 4
VMs included in the price. You are not limited to 4. These 4 can be any
combination of Standard or Enterprise. If you want to run more than 4
you need to have the appropriate number of server licenses. 

 

Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter includes the ability to run unlimited
VMs. Well unlimited up to the limits of your hardware, CPU, RAM, etc.
Datacenter is licensed per CPU and minimum of 2 CPUs. This is where a
cost analysis will help.

 

Do you plan on clustering the servers?

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Yes, they told me that is part of the setup.

 

 

From: Matthew B Ames [mailto:matthew.a...@qinetiq.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

Best hope your NetApp is connected via some means to the internet (or
whatever black magic the NetApp uses to talk back to the mothership so
they can send you an email).

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: 13 March 2012 18:08
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

"NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)"

 

That is GREAT to hear, thx

 

 

 

 

From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

I'm really just getting started here myself, but...

 

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh
yeah - the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the
datastore.  Figure on getting some dedicated network switches as well
and work out some subnetting (so the management, kernel, and other
connections are not a part of your main LAN).

 

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is
from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(r)
(ASPCA(r)) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein
and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the
contents of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the original
and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.

~ Finally, powerful en

RE: New to virtualization

[Matthew B Ames]

Best hope your NetApp is connected via some means to the internet (or whatever 
black magic the NetApp uses to talk back to the mothership so they can send you 
an email).

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: 13 March 2012 18:08
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

"NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go 
bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  
Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going 
wrong.)"

That is GREAT to hear, thx




From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I'm really just getting started here myself, but...

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for 
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh yeah - 
the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the datastore.  Figure on 
getting some dedicated network switches as well and work out some subnetting 
(so the management, kernel, and other connections are not a part of your main 
LAN).

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go bad, 
and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  Sometimes 
that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going wrong.)

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(r) (ASPCA(r)) and 
is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any 
attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the 
original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscription

Re: New to virtualization

[John Cook]

You can manage any individual ESX host with the VI client if the VCenter were 
to go off line.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 09:20 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

We do exactly this at %dayjob%. It’s been a bummer on the couple of occasions 
that ESX had had an issue and the only way to get to that vCenter box is to 
take the other VM’s offline (or rather that’s how my ESX guy explained it to 
me). That was a couple years ago so newer versions may have addressed this.


From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@harrison.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the management box 
for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server *can* be a VM and 
is supported as such. Some people have nervous twitches about it, but it’s 
perfectly workable.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro 
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]<mailto:[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Thanks,
Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and they 
are taxed pretty hard.
I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes, they 
usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

What do you mean by “Virtualizing VirtualCenter�?



From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]<mailto:[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll need 
to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only supported 
one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some heavy app testing 
to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't, you'll have to invest in 
some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously 
you won't get as many users on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical 
one (unless your physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 
30-40 users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing 
power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server, maybe a 
DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything else is down. 
Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't that much of an 
issue.
On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the bo

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

I definitely see some room for growing your total number of servers there.
Isolating DCs would be #1.  DCs and DNS can stay together, but, putting AV
on its own, file sharing (maybe with WSUS, I have the files for WSUS on the
same computer as my file/print server).  I actually have backup on a
different (physical) server, but I roll my own with robocopy...

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate
> the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
> really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?
>
> Well, my first Domain Controller (up until last week, was my ONLY DC) is
> doing all this:
>
> Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
>
> Domain Controller (holds all 5 FSMO roles)
>
> Global Catalog
>
> DNS
>
> WSUS 
>
> File Shares (My Documents redirection, all shared drives)
>
> GFI Vipre Antimalware server
>
> Symantec Backup Exec 10d 
>
> ** **
>
> The remaining boxes are pretty much dedicated:
>
> BES (dedicated)
>
> OWA (dedicated)
>
> Exchange 2003 (dedicated)
>
> 3 Citrix 4.0 servers (dedicated)
>
> SCO UNIX billing server (dedicated)
>
> MAS200 (also Citrix licensing server, web interface server, terminal
> services profile storage)
>
> Document imaging (also my 2nd DC, and print server)
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:49 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even accounting
> for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The ability to add and
> move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a a much more robust
> environment.
>
>  
>
> When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
> for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
> additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.
>
>  
>
> David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate
> the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
> really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith 
> wrote:
>
> “However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
> increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? “
>
> Datacenter is licensed per CPU – those are dual CPU servers so you would
> need 6 Datacenter licenses.
>
>  
>
> *From:* David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* New to virtualization
>
>  
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the
> 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  **
> **
>
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I u

RE: New to virtualization

[David Lum]

We do exactly this at %dayjob%. It's been a bummer on the couple of occasions 
that ESX had had an issue and the only way to get to that vCenter box is to 
take the other VM's offline (or rather that's how my ESX guy explained it to 
me). That was a couple years ago so newer versions may have addressed this.


From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@harrison.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the management box 
for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server *can* be a VM and 
is supported as such. Some people have nervous twitches about it, but it's 
perfectly workable.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro 
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]<mailto:[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Thanks,
Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and they 
are taxed pretty hard.
I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes, they 
usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

What do you mean by "Virtualizing VirtualCenter"?



From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]<mailto:[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll need 
to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only supported 
one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some heavy app testing 
to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't, you'll have to invest in 
some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously 
you won't get as many users on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical 
one (unless your physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 
30-40 users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing 
power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server, maybe a 
DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything else is down. 
Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't that much of an 
issue.
On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could prov

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Excellent!

Thank you very much.

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

If you use VMWare, you'll have a VirtualCenter system that manages all
of your hosts and clusters. Some people keep this physical, but you can
virtualize this management system as well.

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_vc_in_vm.pdf

I'd recommend doing a "parallel" migration for your Citrix users, i.e.
stand up a XenApp 6.5 farm, install the same applications as your old
garm, and allow the users access to both new and old farms through a
single Web Interface (Mr Webster's blog has a good article on doing
this). Then you can get some test users to try the "new" apps, get some
feel for the metrics of your new virtualized systems, and be able to
instantly roll them back to the old farm if you hit any issues.

On 13 March 2012 18:12, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Thanks,

Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users
and they are taxed pretty hard.

I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the
boxes, they usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

 

What do you mean by "Virtualizing VirtualCenter"?

 

 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing
you'll need to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the
only supported one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do
some heavy app testing to make sure everything will work OK. If it
doesn't, you'll have to invest in some other way of getting at those
apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously you won't get as many users
on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical one (unless your
physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 30-40
users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and
processing power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server,
maybe a DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when
everything else is down. Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the
VMWare route) isn't that much of an issue.

On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin






-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed
to you

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could
isolate the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would
you really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?

Well, my first Domain Controller (up until last week, was my ONLY DC) is
doing all this:

Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2

Domain Controller (holds all 5 FSMO roles)

Global Catalog

DNS

WSUS 

File Shares (My Documents redirection, all shared drives)

GFI Vipre Antimalware server

Symantec Backup Exec 10d 

 

The remaining boxes are pretty much dedicated:

BES (dedicated)

OWA (dedicated)

Exchange 2003 (dedicated)

3 Citrix 4.0 servers (dedicated)

SCO UNIX billing server (dedicated)

MAS200 (also Citrix licensing server, web interface server, terminal
services profile storage)

Document imaging (also my 2nd DC, and print server)

 

 

 

 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even
accounting for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The
ability to add and move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a
a much more robust environment.

 

When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.

 

David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could
isolate the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would
you really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith
 wrote:

"However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? "

Datacenter is licensed per CPU - those are dual CPU servers so you would
need 6 Datacenter licenses.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog

Re: New to virtualization

[John Cook]

As an adendum to Garys note about VCenter VMWare has a free VM appliance for 
managing your servers.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 08:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Haven’t discussed clustering yet.
I will probably look at a DR planning first? co-location or replicating to 
another of my offices maybe?

WOW – I just noticed all the replies trickling in due to the delays of this 
list.
THANKS EVERYONE!  This really turned into a great thread, w/ tons of info.



From: Art DeKneef [mailto:art.dekn...@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Good topic David as I’m planning for a similar environment so I am interested 
in the same answers. Using Hyper-V and Remote Desktop Services, main office and 
remote office with 6 servers and ~100+ people.

Quick answers to some of the questions.

Most recommend at least one physical box that is a DC, DNS, DHCP and management 
server. If everything happens to be off at the same time having this physical 
box online first solves issues of no DC being available. Yes you can schedule 
the VMs to start in a certain order but are all the other pieces running also.

Exchange 2010 is supported being virtualized. I have no experience with Citrix 
but I’m sure Webster will be able to answer the question. Additional DCs can be 
virtualized.

Only you can answer whether 7 TB of storage is enough. How much do you have 
now? What is expected growth rate? How expandable is the SAN?

Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise includes the ability to run up to 4 VMs 
included in the price. You are not limited to 4. These 4 can be any combination 
of Standard or Enterprise. If you want to run more than 4 you need to have the 
appropriate number of server licenses.

Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter includes the ability to run unlimited VMs. 
Well unlimited up to the limits of your hardware, CPU, RAM, etc. Datacenter is 
licensed per CPU and minimum of 2 CPUs. This is where a cost analysis will help.

Do you plan on clustering the servers?

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sun

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thanks for the link!

I will inquire about virtual clustering, initially I was just thinking
of hosting stand alone hosts...

 

 

From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

The others have given some good suggestions.  Mine is download ESXi and
play with it (And HyperV).  Spend the time now because VMware is
currently vey expensive and your environment sounds within the bounds of
HyperV and if you find real savings there you can spend it doing some
upgrades (AD, Exchange, Citrix)

 

You can virtualize everything.  It does complicate getting your
environment back up if you have an unexpected outage (UPS dies, catches
fire, repairs don't go well and you get a call at 2am regarding an
unexpected outage but I digress).  Even though it 'complicates' things,
it's certainly still do-able.  With VMware you just have to connect to
your hosts individually until you get one with the DC on it and get it
powered up before you bring everything else up.  Having a physical DC is
a nice to have as you can ensure it's powered up first and life is
easier but it's not necessary, just really really nice.  (One of our
more isolated evironments as about 40 guests on 3 hosts and completely
virtual including DCs with above referenced annoyances).

 

If you go with VMware you are licensing both Microsoft and VMware per
host and VMware has the fun new memory based price model.  If you look
at the costs you may find that just using HyperV then Windows Datacenter
license may come out equal and grants you more flexibility regarding
guest systems.  System Center 2012 suite of products is coming out any
day now so there is a lot of 'free training' offered via marketing (see
some earlier threads).  

 

Are you looking at virtual clustering for uptime SLA's or were you just
hosting stand alone hosts?

 

http://systemcenteruniverse.com/Agenda  <-- look at the SCVMM
presentation.  

 

Just some thoguhts

Steven Peck

http://www.blkmtn.org

 


 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[James Rankin]

That's just short of £1,000,000 for AppSense licenses, according to my
calculations. In that case - I'd assume they use the whole suite.

On 14 March 2012 10:47, Webster  wrote:

>  They do use AppSense but I don’t know what parts of AppSense they use
> and with which XenApp and XenDesktop projects.  I am sure 23,300 AppSense
> licenses were not cheap!  I am also sure 22,500 Platinum XenApp licenses,
> 800 Platinum XenDesktop 4 licenses and 25,000 Platinum XenDesktop 5.6
> licenses set them back a good bit of money.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Carl Webster
>
> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
>
> http://www.CarlWebster.com <http://www.carlwebster.com/>
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  ** **
>
> 90 users per VM is pretty damn good, but packing in 16GB RAM per guest
> probably helps more than a bit :-)
>
>
> I reckon I could squeeze them out to over 100 with AppSense Performance
> Manager (unless they already use it, in which case I can't)
>
>  On 14 March 2012 09:49, Webster  wrote:
>
> The customer I am working for now has 4 2008 R2 VMs per ESX 3.5 and
> XenServer 6 host running XenApp 6.5.  They get 90 users per VM or 360 users
> per host.  IIRC, the hosts are HP DL380 G6 64GB RAM.  THey support 22,500
> concurrent users spread across the world but the vast majority are U.S.
> based workers using HP Linux thin clients.
>
> ** **
>
> The XenApp 6.5 VMs are provisioned using Citrix PVS 5.6 SP2.  As you can
> probably imagine, everything, and I mean everything, is extremely highly
> available and redundant.  Firewalls, routers, core switches, databases,
> hosts, connections between their thousands of remote sites, etc etc etc.**
> **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>


-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *

* The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing the seamier side
of the Internet, would cut off my manhood and feed it to me for afternoon
tea. *

RE: New to virtualization

[Webster]

They do use AppSense but I don't know what parts of AppSense they use and with 
which XenApp and XenDesktop projects.  I am sure 23,300 AppSense licenses were 
not cheap!  I am also sure 22,500 Platinum XenApp licenses, 800 Platinum 
XenDesktop 4 licenses and 25,000 Platinum XenDesktop 5.6 licenses set them back 
a good bit of money.


Carl Webster
Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
http://www.CarlWebster.com<http://www.carlwebster.com/>

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

90 users per VM is pretty damn good, but packing in 16GB RAM per guest probably 
helps more than a bit :-)

I reckon I could squeeze them out to over 100 with AppSense Performance Manager 
(unless they already use it, in which case I can't)
On 14 March 2012 09:49, Webster 
mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> wrote:
The customer I am working for now has 4 2008 R2 VMs per ESX 3.5 and XenServer 6 
host running XenApp 6.5.  They get 90 users per VM or 360 users per host.  
IIRC, the hosts are HP DL380 G6 64GB RAM.  THey support 22,500 concurrent users 
spread across the world but the vast majority are U.S. based workers using HP 
Linux thin clients.

The XenApp 6.5 VMs are provisioned using Citrix PVS 5.6 SP2.  As you can 
probably imagine, everything, and I mean everything, is extremely highly 
available and redundant.  Firewalls, routers, core switches, databases, hosts, 
connections between their thousands of remote sites, etc etc etc.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[James Rankin]

90 users per VM is pretty damn good, but packing in 16GB RAM per guest
probably helps more than a bit :-)

I reckon I could squeeze them out to over 100 with AppSense Performance
Manager (unless they already use it, in which case I can't)

On 14 March 2012 09:49, Webster  wrote:

>   The customer I am working for now has 4 2008 R2 VMs per ESX 3.5 and
> XenServer 6 host running XenApp 6.5.  They get 90 users per VM or 360 users
> per host.  IIRC, the hosts are HP DL380 G6 64GB RAM.  THey support 22,500
> concurrent users spread across the world but the vast majority are U.S.
> based workers using HP Linux thin clients.
>
>  The XenApp 6.5 VMs are provisioned using Citrix PVS 5.6 SP2.  As you can
> probably imagine, everything, and I mean everything, is extremely highly
> available and redundant.  Firewalls, routers, core switches, databases,
> hosts, connections between their thousands of remote sites, etc etc etc.
>
>  BTW, at the site I am working at (HQ with main IT staff), they are
> desperately  trying to fill over 150 open IT positions.  They have 4 other
> IT sites they are hiring for also.
>
>
>Carl Webster
>
> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
>
> http://www.CarlWebster.com <http://www.carlwebster.com/>
>
>   From: Andrew Baker 
>
> Subject: Re: New to virtualization
>
>  Citrix loves RAM too.  Going with 6-8GB and x64 will improve performance.
>
> **
>
> *ASB*  *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker*  *Harnessing the Advantages of
> Technology for the SMB market…
>
> *
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>> Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and
>> they are taxed pretty hard.
>>
>> I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes,
>> they usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.
>>
>>
>>~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are
running Exchange 5.5 and everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the
event that you do get this message then please note that we take no
responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or
implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving,
or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all
liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm, hell, where was I...umm, no matter
what happens, it is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT! *

* The comments and opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my
employer, who, if he k

Re: New to virtualization

[John Cook]

It is indeed
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

From: Gary Slinger [mailto:gary.slin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 08:55 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

I don't have a supporting link for this handy, but not only 'can' you run 
vCenter in a VM, that is currently VMware's declared best practice.

G

--
Gary K. Slinger
Practice/Content Manager, Virtualization Services Practice
Mainline Information Systems
Office: 727-475-1947 (Tampa, FL)

From: Damien Solodow 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:00:18 +
To: NT System Admin Issues
ReplyTo: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the management box 
for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server *can* be a VM and 
is supported as such. Some people have nervous twitches about it, but it’s 
perfectly workable.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Thanks,
Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and they 
are taxed pretty hard.
I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes, they 
usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

What do you mean by “Virtualizing VirtualCenter”?



From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]<mailto:[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll need 
to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only supported 
one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some heavy app testing 
to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't, you'll have to invest in 
some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously 
you won't get as many users on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical 
one (unless your physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 
30-40 users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing 
power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server, maybe a 
DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything else is down. 
Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't that much of an 
issue.
On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage,

Re: New to virtualization

[Harry Singh]

FWIW, there is also the vCenter virtual appliance that allows you to run
the vCenter database on the same appliance. One less windows license to
worry about. It supports iBMDB2 and Oracle, not SQL databases and It also
doesn't support linked-mode.

As far as the bottleneck goes, NetApp and Vmware both support NIC teaming
and, although unfamiliar with NetApp, I'm sure they have intelligence
built-in to load balance/distribute between network links to minimize any
throughput issues. In my experience, Vmware's network load balancing (
route based on IP hash, route based on originating ID) works extremely well.



On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Gary Slinger wrote:

> I don't have a supporting link for this handy, but not only 'can' you run
> vCenter in a VM, that is currently VMware's declared best practice.
>
> G
>
> --
> Gary K. Slinger
> Practice/Content Manager, Virtualization Services Practice
> Mainline Information Systems
> Office: 727-475-1947 (Tampa, FL)
> --
> *From: * Damien Solodow 
> *Date: *Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:00:18 +
> *To: *NT System Admin Issues
> *ReplyTo: * "NT System Admin Issues" <
> ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>
> *Subject: *RE: New to virtualization
>
>  In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the
> management box for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server
> **can** be a VM and is supported as such. Some people have nervous
> twitches about it, but it’s perfectly workable.
>
> ** **
>
> DAMIEN SOLODOW
>
> Systems Engineer
>
> 317.447.6033 (office)
>
> 317.447.6014 (fax)
>
> HARRISON COLLEGE
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: New to virtualization
>
>  ** **
>
> Thanks,
>
> Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and
> they are taxed pretty hard.
>
> I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes,
> they usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.
>
> ** **
>
> What do you mean by “Virtualizing VirtualCenter”?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
>  ** **
>
> Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll
> need to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only
> supported one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some
> heavy app testing to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't,
> you'll have to invest in some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM
> Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously you won't get as many users on a virtual
> XenApp system as you do on a physical one (unless your physical ones are
> highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 30-40 users per box being a
> ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing power you throw at the
> VMs.
>
> The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server,
> maybe a DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything
> else is down. Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't
> that much of an issue.
>
> On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the
> 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
>
&g

Re: New to virtualization

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mayo, Bill  wrote:
>> “NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go
>> bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.
>> Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going
>> wrong.)”
>
> FWIW, that is not unique to that vendor.  EMC just shows up.

  Plus, I expect for many vendors, it's a function of the support
contract you buy as well.  You can often choose
no-cost-you're-on-your-own, or
expensive-but-they-do-everything-but-walk-the-dog, with multiple
points between.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[Gary Slinger]

I don't have a supporting link for this handy, but not only 'can' you run 
vCenter in a VM, that is currently VMware's declared best practice. 

G

-- 
Gary K. Slinger
Practice/Content Manager, Virtualization Services Practice
Mainline Information Systems
Office: 727-475-1947 (Tampa, FL)
 
-Original Message-
From: Damien Solodow 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:00:18 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the management box 
for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server *can* be a VM and 
is supported as such. Some people have nervous twitches about it, but it's 
perfectly workable.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Thanks,
Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and they 
are taxed pretty hard.
I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes, they 
usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

What do you mean by "Virtualizing VirtualCenter"?



From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]<mailto:[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll need 
to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only supported 
one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some heavy app testing 
to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't, you'll have to invest in 
some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously 
you won't get as many users on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical 
one (unless your physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 
30-40 users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing 
power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server, maybe a 
DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything else is down. 
Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't that much of an 
issue.
On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

* IMPORTANT

RE: New to virtualization

[Ralph Smith]

Absolutely.  Once you have virtualization it's so damn easy to just
bring up a new server when needed.  You do have beware server sprawl,
and more VMs means more machines to monitor, patch, etc., but the value
of having the flexibility to move machines around, to quickly provision
new servers, to address disaster recovery issues can't be overstated.  I
started incorporating virtualization slowly at my not-for-profit about 4
years ago, and didn't get Datacenter licenses.  Now I'm in the process
of flattening the host machines and putting datacenter on them.

 

BES is a great example of having a single task server.  When I had it
sharing a physical machine with some other products it was a real pain
because it was always having issues that seemed only a reboot would
solve.  Now its it's own VM, it still needs fairly frequent reboots
(although not as often as before, new install, new version), but no big
deal - nobody even notices.  

 

I'll admit to not seeing in the beginning how far I'd be taking
virtualization, and should heve gotten more licensing, more memory and
more disk space up front.




From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization


If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even
accounting for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The
ability to add and move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a
a much more robust environment.
 
When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.
 
David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could
isolate the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would
you really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith
 wrote:


"However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a
small increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? "

Datacenter is licensed per CPU - those are dual CPU servers so
you would need 6 Datacenter licenses.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM 

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization





 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network
infrastructure into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they
are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB
drives of storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP
servers to run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on
the SAN, and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing
the host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both
have started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make
sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the
SAN and the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig
Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array
config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/
3 Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and
better patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog!
~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that 

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

Forgot I even sent this...

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, Jonathan Link  wrote:
> If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even
accounting for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The ability
to add and move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a a much
more robust environment.
>
> When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.
>
> David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could
isolate the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith 
wrote:
>
> “However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? “
>
> Datacenter is licensed per CPU – those are dual CPU servers so you would
need 6 Datacenter licenses.
>
>
>
> From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
>
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: New to virtualization
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s
CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: New to virtualization

[Paul Hutchings]

I guess this is where it's easy for me to say this, but if you have the time 
and inclination do take on board mine and others suggestions to dig out a spare 
box and just play like mad with VMware/Hyper-V and a couple of the VSA/NAS 
distributions that you can download - honestly it'll just put you in such a 
good position when you're speaking to any potential reseller, and respectfully 
as I don't know your situation, it may allow you to re-evaluate the $40k's 
worth of services on the quote :)

One of the problems you'll probably face is that if you don't have a very 
specific set of requirements, most SAN/NAS solutions will likely do what you 
want - this is good because it gives you choice, but it's bad because other 
than price it can be difficult to grade solutions based on need.

NetApp is good kit, but you do pay for it, so again just be very sure what 
licenses and support is/is not included, how long it is for, and what any 
future expansion is likely to set you back.

Basically don't rush it :)


From: David Mazzaccaro [david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: 13 March 2012 6:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

The total $130k proposal does include 200 W2008 CALs, 75 Citrix Xenapp 
licenses, new PIX ASA firewall, and ~$40k of services.
It would also bring my domain up to 2008 R2, a new Citrix XenApp farm.




From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

If it were me, given the limited details (no mention of IOPs), I would be 
looking at the new G8 HP or 12g Dell servers that can take a lot more spindles, 
with a view to using DAS and running a Virtual SAN under VMware.

DataCenter is the way to go ideally as you will end up with more VM’s than you 
expected to and an Enterprise license doesn’t (I think) allow you to shift VM’s 
around if you follow it strictly.

Spend some of your money on CALs and infrastructure rather than blowing the lot 
on running a 10 year old OS on a spanky new hardware SAN IMO.
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: 13 March 2012 15:04
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource

RE: New to virtualization

[David Lum]

My mitigation for Cold Start is having the Hyper-V server that hosts a DC / 
DHCP not be part of the domain and have a couple entries in the HOSTS file.  In 
fact my latest deployment (yes the sbs2011) the Hyper-V host points to a public 
DNS server so I can remote to it even if all the guests on it drop offline. 

At Hyper-V client #2 (they have two Hyper-V hosts) I have on host on the domain 
and the other off-domain. I can manage both from one console, I just have to 
use local credentials for the off-domain one.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:56 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM, David Mazzaccaro 
 wrote:
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure 
> into the virtual world.

  Your questions sound similar to the ones I had a few months ago.
You should prolly review this thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com/msg106517.html

> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, 
> and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the 
> host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

  Right.  The storage for each VM lives on the SAN.  The VMs run on the HP 
servers.  It's basically just a different way of attaching disks.

> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

  For some value of "sense".

> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN 
> and the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig 
> Ethernet)

  As opposed to what?

> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

  Varies.  From what I've seen, a common recommendation is to have some core IP 
& AD infrastructure (DNS and DC) available on a dedicated physical box, for a 
"cold start" scenario.  Otherwise the VM host can end up trying to talk to DNS 
or DC to start the VM which holds for DNS/DC.

> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

  That depends *entirely* on how much data you're storing.

> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 
> Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

  Yes, and the host would be restricted to providing VM hosting *only*.  You're 
not permitted to do anything else on the host OS.

> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small 
> increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs?

  Yes.  Be aware that you need a DC license *per physical processor* (chip 
package), and it's a minimum of two per physical host.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[James Rankin]

If you use VMWare, you'll have a VirtualCenter system that manages all of
your hosts and clusters. Some people keep this physical, but you can
virtualize this management system as well.

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_vc_in_vm.pdf

I'd recommend doing a "parallel" migration for your Citrix users, i.e.
stand up a XenApp 6.5 farm, install the same applications as your old garm,
and allow the users access to both new and old farms through a single Web
Interface (Mr Webster's blog has a good article on doing this). Then you
can get some test users to try the "new" apps, get some feel for the
metrics of your new virtualized systems, and be able to instantly roll them
back to the old farm if you hit any issues.

On 13 March 2012 18:12, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and
> they are taxed pretty hard.
>
> I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes,
> they usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.
>
> ** **
>
> What do you mean by “Virtualizing VirtualCenter”?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll
> need to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only
> supported one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some
> heavy app testing to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't,
> you'll have to invest in some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM
> Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously you won't get as many users on a virtual
> XenApp system as you do on a physical one (unless your physical ones are
> highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 30-40 users per box being a
> ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing power you throw at the
> VMs.
>
> The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server,
> maybe a DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything
> else is down. Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't
> that much of an issue.
>
> On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the
> 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  **
> **
>
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
>
> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase
> in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 
>
> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
> patch deployment?
>
> Thx
>
>
> .
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_foru

Re: New to virtualization

[Sean Martin]

I would expect that from any SAN hardware vendor.

- Sean

On Mar 13, 2012, at 10:07 AM, "David Mazzaccaro" 
 wrote:

> “NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go 
> bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  
> Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going 
> wrong.)”
>  
> That is GREAT to hear, thx
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: New to virtualization
>  
> I’m really just getting started here myself, but…
>  
> VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for 
> redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh yeah – 
> the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the datastore.  Figure on 
> getting some dedicated network switches as well and work out some subnetting 
> (so the management, kernel, and other connections are not a part of your main 
> LAN).
>  
> NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go 
> bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  
> Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going 
> wrong.)
>  
> From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: New to virtualization
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
> virtual world.
> 
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
> 
> Windows 2003 domain
> 
> Exchange 2003
> 
> Citrix 4.0 farm
> 
> ~190 users
> 
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are 
> recommending:
> 
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
> 
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of 
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
> 
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
> 
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
> Windows 2008 VMs each)
> 
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and 
> the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, 
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
> 
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
> the conversation along the same path as above.
> 
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense? 
> 
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
> host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
> 
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server? 
> 
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
> 
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
> 
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)? 
> 
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
> 
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
> 
> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
> price - I would get unlimited VMs?
> 
> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
> deployment?
> 
> Thx
> 
> 
> .
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: 
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
> 
>  
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
> The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®) and 
> is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 
> legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the 
> intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, 
> and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently 
> delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
>  
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: 
> http://lyris.sunbelt-s

RE: New to virtualization

[Damien Solodow]

In a VMware environment VirtualCenter (or vCenter Server) is the management box 
for handling all your VMware servers and guests. This server *can* be a VM and 
is supported as such. Some people have nervous twitches about it, but it's 
perfectly workable.

DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:12 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

Thanks,
Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users and they 
are taxed pretty hard.
I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the boxes, they 
usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

What do you mean by "Virtualizing VirtualCenter"?



From: James Rankin 
[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]<mailto:[mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll need 
to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only supported 
one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some heavy app testing 
to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't, you'll have to invest in 
some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously 
you won't get as many users on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical 
one (unless your physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 
30-40 users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing 
power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server, maybe a 
DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything else is down. 
Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't that much of an 
issue.
On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If 
you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore 
you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you. However, if the 
contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the 
intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a mindless cretin; either way, 
you should immediately kill yourself and destroy your computer (not ne

RE: New to virtualization

[Mayo, Bill]

FWIW, that is not unique to that vendor.  EMC just shows up.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

"NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)"

 

That is GREAT to hear, thx

 

 

 

 

From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

I'm really just getting started here myself, but...

 

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh
yeah - the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the
datastore.  Figure on getting some dedicated network switches as well
and work out some subnetting (so the management, kernel, and other
connections are not a part of your main LAN).

 

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is
from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(r)
(ASPCA(r)) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein
and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the
contents of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the original
and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, 

Re: New to virtualization

[James Rankin]

Don't forget XenServer, it has a free version and the word on the street is
that XenDesktop (should you ever tread that path) plays better on XenServer
than other virtualized platforms (surprisingly)

On 13 March 2012 18:02, Steven Peck  wrote:

> The others have given some good suggestions.  Mine is download ESXi and
> play with it (And HyperV).  Spend the time now because VMware is currently
> vey expensive and your environment sounds within the bounds of HyperV and
> if you find real savings there you can spend it doing some upgrades (AD,
> Exchange, Citrix)
>
> You can virtualize everything.  It does complicate getting your
> environment back up if you have an unexpected outage (UPS dies, catches
> fire, repairs don't go well and you get a call at 2am regarding an
> unexpected outage but I digress).  Even though it 'complicates' things,
> it's certainly still do-able.  With VMware you just have to connect to your
> hosts individually until you get one with the DC on it and get it powered
> up before you bring everything else up.  Having a physical DC is a nice to
> have as you can ensure it's powered up first and life is easier but it's
> not necessary, just really really nice.  (One of our more isolated
> evironments as about 40 guests on 3 hosts and completely virtual including
> DCs with above referenced annoyances).
>
> If you go with VMware you are licensing both Microsoft and VMware per host
> and VMware has the fun new memory based price model.  If you look at the
> costs you may find that just using HyperV then Windows Datacenter license
> may come out equal and grants you more flexibility regarding guest
> systems.  System Center 2012 suite of products is coming out any day now so
> there is a lot of 'free training' offered via marketing (see some earlier
> threads).
>
> Are you looking at virtual clustering for uptime SLA's or were you just
> hosting stand alone hosts?
>
> http://systemcenteruniverse.com/Agenda  <-- look at the SCVMM
> presentation.
>
> Just some thoguhts
> Steven Peck
> http://www.blkmtn.org
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
> david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
>> the virtual world.
>>
>> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>>
>> Windows 2003 domain
>>
>> Exchange 2003
>>
>> Citrix 4.0 farm
>>
>> ~190 users
>>
>> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
>> recommending:
>>
>> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>>
>> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
>> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>>
>> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>>
>> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
>> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>>
>> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
>> and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s
>> CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>>
>> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
>> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>>
>> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?
>>
>> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
>> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>>
>> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?
>>
>> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>>
>> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>>
>> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?
>>
>> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>>
>> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
>> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
>>
>> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
>> increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs?
>>
>> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
>> patch deployment?
>>
>> Thx
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>> ---
>> To manage subscriptions click here:
>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

** IMP

Re: New to virtualization

[Kramer, Jack]

Our cluster isn't too far off of your planned one—we built our own SAN using 
Open-E (which is a software iSCSI target package) and Supermicro hardware with 
very good performance, though we did pack it very very full of spindles (111 
spindles including hot spares) at about twice the cost you're looking at. We 
have 24 TB of high availability SAN storage between two datacenters as a 
result. I would say the NetApp is a good price considering you'll be getting 
vendor support. We decided to keep two physical domain controllers in addition 
to two virtual ones, which lets us operate with all VM hosts down in a disaster 
situation. Our vCenter is also on a physical host, though that's only because 
it started as a physical box and it's been easier to just keep it that way 
instead of making it virtual (it'll be remade as a virtual machine eventually).

You have the basic idea of how the VM system works exactly right. Single 
gigabit ethernet is actually not much of a bottleneck since your usual 
deployment will have a dedicated NIC for storage traffic. Sharing a storage NIC 
with your VM traffic is a very bad idea except in cases of extremely light 
load. We actually have four gigabit ports in aggregation on each of our storage 
hosts and a dedicated iSCSI SAN adapter (a Qlogic QLE4060) for each of our four 
vSphere hosts. Modern HP and Dell servers have built-in support for iSCSI 
offloading, which means you wouldn't need the dedicated host card. (It 
outperforms the software iSCSI adapter that ESXi includes very handily, and 
also gets you faster boots on vSphere 5.) Each of our VM servers has 8 NICs, 
four onboard and four from an Intel quad-port card. We have three ports on each 
server dedicated to vMotion between hosts (which allows for hot migration of 
virtual machines from host to host for load balancing purposes), three ports in 
aggregation for VM traffic (with multiple VLANs passed to the aggregated port, 
simulating several separate wired LANs), and two ports left for host management 
to give us redundancy. You'll want to make sure you have high-quality 
networking gear—ours is Juniper EX3200 switches in both datacenters.

We opted for Datacenter instead of Enterprise to avoid being limited on our 
quantity of Windows guests—it's nice to be able to fire up any number of 
Windows server systems you feel like having. I would bet that 12 VMs would not 
be a lot of load on a cluster like you've described and I'd say go with 
Datacenter. (It was a lot easier for us to make the jump since we're academic, 
which means we pay next to nothing for our Microsoft licenses.) I would also 
say go ahead and virtualize everything. (We would have if we didn't already 
have two Windows 2008 domain controllers before deploying vSphere.) You sound 
like you'll be well set on hardware, and your biggest bottleneck is likely to 
be RAM usage and that's an easy hardware (and licensing) upgrade. Also, you can 
always purchase a full vCenter license and add vSphere hosts to your heart's 
desire (allowing you to expand beyond the 3 hosts in the kit you're purchasing).


Jack Kramer
Manager of Information Technology
University Relations, Michigan State University
w: 517-884-1231 / c: 248-635-4955

From: David Mazzaccaro 
mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com>>
Reply-To: NT System Admin Issues 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:04:14 -0400
To: NT System Admin Issues 
mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enter

Re: New to virtualization

[Jonathan Link]

If I were doing licensing from scratch, I'd go Datacenter, even accounting
for the CPU licensing, it's not all that much more.  The ability to add and
move servers, "thinly" provision servers, etc makes a a much more robust
environment.

When I say thinly provision servers, I mean, making a server responsible
for only one task, such as AV management, BES, whatever, without putting
additional duties on it as is common in a physical server environment.

David: of the physical servers, if you had your druthers and could isolate
the tasks out to an individual server, how many servers would you
really have?  Or are all those servers only doing one task, already?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Smith wrote:

> “However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
> increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? “
>
> Datacenter is licensed per CPU – those are dual CPU servers so you would
> need 6 Datacenter licenses.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* New to virtualization
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003 
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the
> 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  **
> **
>
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
>
> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase
> in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 
>
> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
> patch deployment?
>
> Thx
>
>
> .
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

The total $130k proposal does include 200 W2008 CALs, 75 Citrix Xenapp
licenses, new PIX ASA firewall, and ~$40k of services.

It would also bring my domain up to 2008 R2, a new Citrix XenApp farm.

 

 

 

 

From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

If it were me, given the limited details (no mention of IOPs), I would
be looking at the new G8 HP or 12g Dell servers that can take a lot more
spindles, with a view to using DAS and running a Virtual SAN under
VMware.

 

DataCenter is the way to go ideally as you will end up with more VM's
than you expected to and an Enterprise license doesn't (I think) allow
you to shift VM's around if you follow it strictly.

 

Spend some of your money on CALs and infrastructure rather than blowing
the lot on running a 10 year old OS on a spanky new hardware SAN IMO.

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: 13 March 2012 15:04
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin



MIRA Ltd

 

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England

Registered in England and Wales No. 402570

VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

 

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use
of the intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please
delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should
not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as
this is prohibited.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thanks

I will check out VM vx HyperV as well as Fiber vs iscsi.

 

 

From: Christopher Bodnar [mailto:christopher_bod...@glic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:47 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

At a high level you have all the components you need. 

Boxes to run ESX 
SAN 
Licensing 

The specifics are open to debate based on your environment. All of the things 
you pointed out are variables that only you can make an informed decision about 
based on the current environment and how you see it evolving over the next ~3 
years. 

Storage for the SAN
Number of new servers added to the environment 
Capacity of current infrastructure 

Some things to think about. 

FC vs iSCSI. 
VMWare vs HyperV 
Disaster Recovery 

In a smaller environment where you may not necessarily need all the bells and 
whistles, Hyper-V is very attractive and may save you $$$. Also I highly 
recommend going to the Data Center license if you can, then  you are covered 
for the OS licenses if you do decide to spin up more boxes. 



Christopher Bodnar 
Enterprise Achitect I, Corporate Office of Technology 

Tel 610-807-6459  
3900 Burgess Place, Bethlehem, PA 18017 
christopher_bod...@glic.com   

 

The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

www.guardianlife.com <http://www.guardianlife.com/>  








From:"David Mazzaccaro"  
To:"NT System Admin Issues"  
Date:03/13/2012 11:33 AM 
Subject:New to virtualization 






Hi all, 

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world. 

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old 

Windows 2003 domain 

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm 

~190 users 

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are 
recommending: 

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000 

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000 

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200 

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each) 

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right? 

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above. 

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?   

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet) 

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?   

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)? 

Shouldn’t something be left physical? 

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?   

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me… 

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs. 

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment? 

Thx 


. 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin 

- This message, and any attachments to 
it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
<>

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thanks,

Right now I have 3 DL360s (dual proc, 4GB, 32bit) for 75 Citrix users
and they are taxed pretty hard.

I always get alerts for CPU and RAM, and if I physically check the
boxes, they usually say 200M free of ram, w/ 6GB pagefile in use.

 

What do you mean by "Virtualizing VirtualCenter"?

 

 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: New to virtualization

 

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing
you'll need to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the
only supported one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do
some heavy app testing to make sure everything will work OK. If it
doesn't, you'll have to invest in some other way of getting at those
apps (VDI, VM Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously you won't get as many users
on a virtual XenApp system as you do on a physical one (unless your
physical ones are highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 30-40
users per box being a ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and
processing power you throw at the VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server,
maybe a DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when
everything else is down. Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the
VMWare route) isn't that much of an issue.

On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin




-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question."

* IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed
to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it
to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever
then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively,
you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill
yourself and destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once
you have taken this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use
your computer, because you just destroyed it, and possibly also
committed suicide afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. 

The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way
it's a pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell
on. But should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to
ruminate on it, and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you
find them. However, if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a
disclaim

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

Ah, right... 6.

I think it would still be a minimal increase in the overall $130k quote.

Good catch! Thank you.

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:20 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

"However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? "

Datacenter is licensed per CPU - those are dual CPU servers so you would
need 6 Datacenter licenses.

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: New to virtualization

[David Mazzaccaro]

"NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)"

 

That is GREAT to hear, thx

 

 

 

 

From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

 

I'm really just getting started here myself, but...

 

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh
yeah - the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the
datastore.  Figure on getting some dedicated network switches as well
and work out some subnetting (so the management, kernel, and other
connections are not a part of your main LAN).

 

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to
go bad, and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to,
etc.  Sometimes that is the first and perhaps only indication something
is going wrong.)

 

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization

 

Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure
into the virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003 

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are
recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN,
and the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the
host's CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
started the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3
Windows Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small
increase in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
patch deployment?

Thx


.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is
from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(r)
(ASPCA(r)) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein
and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the
contents of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the original
and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[Steven Peck]

The others have given some good suggestions.  Mine is download ESXi and
play with it (And HyperV).  Spend the time now because VMware is currently
vey expensive and your environment sounds within the bounds of HyperV and
if you find real savings there you can spend it doing some upgrades (AD,
Exchange, Citrix)

You can virtualize everything.  It does complicate getting your environment
back up if you have an unexpected outage (UPS dies, catches fire, repairs
don't go well and you get a call at 2am regarding an unexpected outage but
I digress).  Even though it 'complicates' things, it's certainly still
do-able.  With VMware you just have to connect to your hosts individually
until you get one with the DC on it and get it powered up before you bring
everything else up.  Having a physical DC is a nice to have as you can
ensure it's powered up first and life is easier but it's not necessary,
just really really nice.  (One of our more isolated evironments as about 40
guests on 3 hosts and completely virtual including DCs with above
referenced annoyances).

If you go with VMware you are licensing both Microsoft and VMware per host
and VMware has the fun new memory based price model.  If you look at the
costs you may find that just using HyperV then Windows Datacenter license
may come out equal and grants you more flexibility regarding guest
systems.  System Center 2012 suite of products is coming out any day now so
there is a lot of 'free training' offered via marketing (see some earlier
threads).

Are you looking at virtual clustering for uptime SLA's or were you just
hosting stand alone hosts?

http://systemcenteruniverse.com/Agenda  <-- look at the SCVMM
presentation.

Just some thoguhts
Steven Peck
http://www.blkmtn.org



On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> **
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and
> the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s
> CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?
>
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
>
> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase
> in price - I would get unlimited VMs?
>
> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
> patch deployment?
>
> Thx
>
>
> .
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.

  Your questions sound similar to the ones I had a few months ago.
You should prolly review this thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com/msg106517.html

> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and
> the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU,
> RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?

  Right.  The storage for each VM lives on the SAN.  The VMs run on
the HP servers.  It's basically just a different way of attaching
disks.

> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

  For some value of "sense".

> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the
> host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

  As opposed to what?

> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

  Varies.  From what I've seen, a common recommendation is to have
some core IP & AD infrastructure (DNS and DC) available on a dedicated
physical box, for a "cold start" scenario.  Otherwise the VM host can
end up trying to talk to DNS or DC to start the VM which holds for
DNS/DC.

> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

  That depends *entirely* on how much data you're storing.

> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

  Yes, and the host would be restricted to providing VM hosting
*only*.  You're not permitted to do anything else on the host OS.

> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in
> price - I would get unlimited VMs?

  Yes.  Be aware that you need a DC license *per physical processor*
(chip package), and it's a minimum of two per physical host.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[John Cook]

Mutiple switches and NICs for redundancy. Google multipathing in ESX
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Subject: RE: New to virtualization

I’m really just getting started here myself, but…

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for 
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh yeah – 
the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the datastore.  Figure on 
getting some dedicated network switches as well and work out some subnetting 
(so the management, kernel, and other connections are not a part of your main 
LAN).

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go bad, 
and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  Sometimes 
that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going wrong.)

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)… right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn’t something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®) and is 
intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally 
privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any 
attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the 
original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com>
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or 
attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), 
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, 
dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without 
the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may 
be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
(HIPAA), and other Fed

RE: New to virtualization

[Rebecca Westhoff]

I just purchased a very similar setup.  I went with the Netapp 2040 at 30k.  
They were quoting me the 2240 at 46k.  This is with about 7TB of storage and 
dual controllers.  Make sure they are including the maintenance in your 
agreement and if you have no experience with netapp you will want them to come 
out and install (another 4k).  Also they have package deals that include all 
software that they have available.  You want to make sure that is included or 
the price will go up greatly if you try to purchase it as an add-on later. They 
are very good devices but they are complex and have a rather steep learning 
curve, IMHO.

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

This message and any attachments are intended only for the individual(s) to 
whom it is addressed. The content is confidential and may be privileged 
information. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the agent 
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any use, reproduction, or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by return e-mail 
and delete this transmission from your system. Any statements and/or views 
expressed that are not prescribed by Performance Designs, Inc. are that of the 
author and do not necessarily reflect those of Performance Designs, Inc.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: New to virtualization

[Richard McClary]

I'm really just getting started here myself, but...

VM NICs  connect to real ESX NICs, and you will need some ESX NICs for 
redundancy, for management, for a possible DMZ in the future, etc.  Oh yeah - 
the ESX hosts need NICs for the iSCSI connection to the datastore.  Figure on 
getting some dedicated network switches as well and work out some subnetting 
(so the management, kernel, and other connections are not a part of your main 
LAN).

NetApp makes good SANs, and their support is great!  (A drive starts to go bad, 
and you get an email from support asking where to ship it to, etc.  Sometimes 
that is the first and perhaps only indication something is going wrong.)

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®) and 
is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any 
attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the 
original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: New to virtualization

[James Rankin]

Nothing wrong with virtualizing your Citrix kit, but another thing you'll
need to remember the latest Citrix XenApp version (soon to be the only
supported one, by July 2013) is 64-bit only, so you'll need to do some
heavy app testing to make sure everything will work OK. If it doesn't,
you'll have to invest in some other way of getting at those apps (VDI, VM
Hosted Apps, etc.) Obviously you won't get as many users on a virtual
XenApp system as you do on a physical one (unless your physical ones are
highly underpowered) - I've seen round about 30-40 users per box being a
ballpark figure dependent on the RAM and processing power you throw at the
VMs.

The only thing you really maybe need to leave physical is a DNS server,
maybe a DC if you want to be able to log in to the domain when everything
else is down. Virtualizing VirtualCenter (if you go the VMWare route) isn't
that much of an issue.

On 13 March 2012 15:04, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com> wrote:

> **
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into
> the virtual world.
>
> ~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
>
> Windows 2003 domain
>
> Exchange 2003
>
> Citrix 4.0 farm
>
> ~190 users
>
> After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are
> recommending:
>
> (3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
>
> (1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of
> storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
>
> VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
>
> (3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to
> run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
>
> I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and
> the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s
> CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
>
> I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have
> started the conversation along the same path as above.
>
> Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?
>
> It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and
> the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
>
> Do people recommend virtualizing every server?
>
> Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
>
> Shouldn’t something be left physical?
>
> Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?
>
> Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
>
> I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows
> Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
>
> However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase
> in price - I would get unlimited VMs?
>
> Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better
> patch deployment?
>
> Thx
>
>
> .
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>



-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *

This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed.
If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and
therefore you can read it, even it we didn't mean to send it to you.
However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you
probably were not the intended recipient, or, alternatively, you are a
mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately kill yourself and
destroy your computer (not necessarily in that order). Once you have taken
this action, please contact us.. no, sorry, you can't use your computer,
because you just destroyed it, and possibly also committed suicide
afterwards, but I am starting to digress.. *

* The originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the
information contained in this communication. Or are they? Either way it's a
pretty dull legal query and frankly one I'm not going to dwell on. But
should you have nothing better to do, please feel free to ruminate on it,
and please pass on any concrete conclusions should you find them. However,
if you pass them on via email, be sure to include a disclaimer regarding
liability for transmission.
*

* In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then
please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mother's
brother's wife wearing nothing but a kangaroo suit, and we will immediately
refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Whiskas you bought
when you went to Pets** ** At Home yesterday. *

* We take no responsibility for non-re

Re: New to virtualization

[Christopher Bodnar]

At a high level you have all the components you need. 

Boxes to run ESX
SAN
Licensing

The specifics are open to debate based on your environment. All of the 
things you pointed out are variables that only you can make an informed 
decision about based on the current environment and how you see it 
evolving over the next ~3 years.

Storage for the SAN
Number of new servers added to the environment
Capacity of current infrastructure

Some things to think about. 

FC vs iSCSI. 
VMWare vs HyperV
Disaster Recovery

In a smaller environment where you may not necessarily need all the bells 
and whistles, Hyper-V is very attractive and may save you $$$. Also I 
highly recommend going to the Data Center license if you can, then  you 
are covered for the OS licenses if you do decide to spin up more boxes. 



Christopher Bodnar 
Enterprise Achitect I, Corporate Office of Technology 
Tel 610-807-6459 
3900 Burgess Place, Bethlehem, PA 18017 
christopher_bod...@glic.com 




The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

www.guardianlife.com 







From:   "David Mazzaccaro" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Date:   03/13/2012 11:33 AM
Subject:New to virtualization



Hi all,
I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into 
the virtual world.
~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old
Windows 2003 domain
Exchange 2003 
Citrix 4.0 farm
~190 users
After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here’s what they are 
recommending:
(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000
(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of 
storage for the VMs) ~$20,000
VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200
(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to 
run 4 Windows 2008 VMs each)
I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and 
the 3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host’s 
CPU, RAM, NIC, etc.)… right?
I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have 
started the conversation along the same path as above.
Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?  
It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and 
the host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)
Do people recommend virtualizing every server?  
Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?
Shouldn’t something be left physical?
Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?  
Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me…
I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.
However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase 
in price - I would get unlimited VMs? 
Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better 
patch deployment?
Thx

.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


-
This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information
that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the
message and any attachments.  Thank you.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
<>

RE: New to virtualization

[Paul Hutchings]

If it were me, given the limited details (no mention of IOPs), I would be 
looking at the new G8 HP or 12g Dell servers that can take a lot more spindles, 
with a view to using DAS and running a Virtual SAN under VMware.

DataCenter is the way to go ideally as you will end up with more VM's than you 
expected to and an Enterprise license doesn't (I think) allow you to shift VM's 
around if you follow it strictly.

Spend some of your money on CALs and infrastructure rather than blowing the lot 
on running a 10 year old OS on a spanky new hardware SAN IMO.

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonmobility.com]
Sent: 13 March 2012 15:04
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: New to virtualization


Hi all,

I am starting to investigate moving our aging network infrastructure into the 
virtual world.

~ 10 servers, 6-7 years old

Windows 2003 domain

Exchange 2003

Citrix 4.0 farm

~190 users

After some initial discussions w/ a reseller, here's what they are recommending:

(3) DL 380 G7 servers (to host the VMs) ~$18,000

(1) Net App FAS2240 (this is the SAN that would host 12 600GB drives of storage 
for the VMs) ~$20,000

VMWare essentials plus kit (VMware software) ~$5200

(3) MS Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise (this would allow the 3 HP servers to run 4 
Windows 2008 VMs each)

I guess the way it would work is that the VMs would reside on the SAN, and the 
3 hosts would call up the SAN to load each VM utilizing the host's CPU, RAM, 
NIC, etc.)... right?

I have meetings scheduled w/ 2 other vendors, but verbally both have started 
the conversation along the same path as above.

Being very new to VM, does the above scenario seem to make sense?

It is hard for me to imagine all that traffic going between the SAN and the 
host servers w/o creating a huge bottleneck (over gig Ethernet)

Do people recommend virtualizing every server?

Domain controllers? Exchange? Citrix farm (4 server)?

Shouldn't something be left physical?

Is 7 TB of storage enough (probably only 3 usable after array config)?

Is the net app a decent appliance? $20k sounds cheap to me...

I have done a little more reading, and from what I understand w/ 3 Windows 
Enterprise licenses, I would be limiting myself to 12 VMs.

However, if I went w/ 3 Windows Datacenter licenses, for a small increase in 
price - I would get unlimited VMs?

Which would allow for actually having a testing environment, and better patch 
deployment?

Thx

.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

--
MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England
Registered in England and Wales No. 402570
VAT Registration  GB 100 1464 84

The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the 
intended recipient.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and 
notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax.  You should not copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin