Home Forums Virtualizing Servers

Is virtualizing servers generally a bad idea?

Thanks.

Actually, virtualizing servers should be the default approach anymore.

I know of NO reason not to, and several of us have waxed eloquent as to why to virtualize. For AC users - the locking of the server installing being a yuge one.

I second Indy's comment. Virtualizing is the ONLY way to go and the ONLY way I'll set up a server.

1. As Indy said, AC's horrible approach to server lock is mitigated by virtualization.

2. No one should be doing bare metal restores anymore. Restoration of backup during an emergency has a much higher success rate when restoring a virtual server than when restoring a bare metal server.

3. Management and allocation of hardware is considerably more cost effective.

4. Server upgrades become way easier.

5. It's easier to add redundancy for high availability (clustering, Hyper-V replica, etc.).

There is every reason to go virtual and no reason not to.

JamesNT

Thanks.

Is VMWare ESXi a good choice?

And how does a virtualized server handle roles like Fax Server? Doesn't it have to have exclusive access to that component?

I'm always going to recommend CentOS and KVM - so easy Doctors do it themselves.

.... and as Wendell would say, "Did I mention it is FREE? "

I'll let James answer for the M$ world.

In KVM you can map physical resources into VMs, or deal with them on host

VMWare is the EXPENSIVE choice. The only time I recommend VMWare is when the client requires hosting legacy operating systems like Windows XP or non-Windows operating systems not supported by Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is also free as it comes with the operating system purchase - a purchase that must be made regardless of hypervisor used.

What kind of fax hardware do you have?

JamesNT

Unless of course, you don't need no stinkin' server OS. ;-)

^^^^Yup.

Tru Dat.

Good to hear from Balti-more

Used to be that having a server with a server OS and a domain was at least ten times better than a P2P for all things networking. Doesn't mean you can't run AC on a client computer or P2P. You can even run Adobe.

But, now with virtualization the advantages of server with VMs, etc., the advantages are huge.

I absolutely agree - CentOS server and KVM for the WIN.

.... and you can keep WIN7 as your AC "server"

No cost other than your valuable existing WIN7 lic.

.... and a shout-out to my WIN7 Docs out there.

Some great points

We originally used VMWare but switched to Hyper-V soon after. The inclusion of native (albeit limited) backup software is a huge plus for Hyper-V (Windows Server Backup/WSB). Copying and Pasting a shutoff VM or snapshots is not really backup strategy. WSB also has the ability to restore backups from a Bitlocker encrypted drive since it's boot environment is WinPE-based.

It pales in comparison to something like Veeam or Acronis, but it's free and gets the job done for your average solo provider.

Thanks for all the responses.

We have a lowish-grade HP Server with a Xeon and 32GB running Windows Server 2012 Std. It's a guest in an ESXi 5.5 host.

My understanding of Windows and Hyper-V was that you had to install Windows Server 2012 as the host OS. Then, you could host two guest VM's off that platform. In that scenario, the Server is not a VM, of course.

Dr. Gianni,

You are quite correct. You install Windows Server 2012 as the host OS then, after adding the Hyper-V role, installed that same media and license code up to two times as virtual guests.

Do note the same licensing applies if you are using VMWare, CentOS, or any other hypervisor. You still have to buy a copy of Windows Server and you are still limited to two guests if you purchase Standard Windows Server.

JamesNT

Thanks, but I'm not a doc. I'm just a doc's friend.

In the above scenario, the Sever is not virtualized. The thread seems to suggest that I should be virtualizing the Server OS.

That's why I've been starting with ESXi as the host platform, then installing Windows Server as one of the guest VM's.

Gianni,

Windows Server can be the host, just add the Hyper-V role.

JamesNT

Thanks. So people are virtualizing in this fashion:

1. Install MS Server 2012 (or 2016) on the PC. Install AC on this physical server.
2. They then activate the Hyper-V role, and install two more OS's of their choice.

Or, is it like this:

1. Install MS Server 2012 (or 2016) on the PC. DO NOT Install AC on this physical server. Do nothing else with this physical install of Server 2012/2016.
2. Activate the Hyper-V role, then install Server 2012/2016 again as a VM. Then, install AC on this VM.

Your second solution is correct. The ONLY thing that should be installed on the Windows host is the backup software agent.

Remember, you get two VM's with standard edition Windows. The second VM could be your domain controller.
(Comment from Bert regarding domain versus P2P in 5, 4, 3, 2...)

JamesNT

OK - I see now.

Server 2012 is playing the role of a Type-2 Hypervisor. It's a little easier because you don't need to remotely administer the VM's from a client.

I'll have to see what kind of a footprint it has. I know ESXi takes up about 1GB of RAM (I think).

I'll take it for a spin. Thanks so much to everyone.

If you have 2016, may as well use that. There are certain hardware requirements. You can look at those here and find out when you install it.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...stem-requirements-for-hyper-v-on-windows

1GB seems like very little RAM. You can go P2P if you want. Makes a lot of sense to set up a hypervisor and VMs on a P2P. But, if you have a P2P, it probably goes without saying you aren't running server hardware.

As far as backup software, yep, you generally install on the host. OR...you can install it on a separate server running Windows Server 2016. Cool.

Always allow 4G of RAM for the hypervisor host regardless of hypervisor.

JamesNT