SBS 2008 and Hyper-V Server
Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.
that Microsoft could put out such a crippled product as Hyper-V Server. I am
seriously questioning whether this is a viable production configuration. Not
to have a GUI is one thing, but essentially Hyper-V Server has no local
interface whatsoever for managing the virtual servers. Getting the MMC to
work remotely was a nightmare and may not even have been possible without
the HVREMOTE script that I found on a blog. Yes, it's working, but I fear
that if something goes wrong it will be extremely difficult to fix without a
functioning local management interface. I know I could install a full
Windows Server 2008 (SBS Premium) and have a GUI and MMC as the hypervisor,
but that may be a tough sell in the SMB segment. Also, while one could run
other services and roles on that parent server, that would defeat the
purpose of having a simple machine *just* to be the hypervisor. It seems as
though Hyper-V Server is more Hype than Server.
That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines for
this previously uncharted territory? How does one intelligently set up and
manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine? Or is it better just to stick with
installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave virtualization to those who
have graduated from the SMB space? Finally, can an SBS 2008 be virtualized
after the fact through some sort of conversion process?
Oliver Sommer [MVP]
> That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines for this
> previously uncharted territory? How does one intelligently set up and
> manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine? Or is it better just to stick
> with installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave virtualization to
> those who have graduated from the SMB space?
My personal guideline:
1. no advantage of running just SBS in Hyper-V
2. if you wanne run additional VMs on that host (which becomes an advantage),
than you need to have decent Hardware for that
3. if decent HW is available SBS Premium sholuld not be an budget issue
--
Oliver Sommer | MVP Essential Business Server
Small Business Specialist Partner Area Lead | SBSC PAL
Community sites | http://EBSfaq.com | http://SBSfaq.de
kj [SBS MVP]
> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server. I am
> amazed that Microsoft could put out such a crippled product as
> Hyper-V Server. I am seriously questioning whether this is a viable
> production configuration. Not to have a GUI is one thing, but
> essentially Hyper-V Server has no local interface whatsoever for
> managing the virtual servers. Getting the MMC to work remotely was a
> nightmare and may not even have been possible without the HVREMOTE
> script that I found on a blog. Yes, it's working, but I fear that if
> something goes wrong it will be extremely difficult to fix without a
> functioning local management interface. I know I could install a full
> Windows Server 2008 (SBS Premium) and have a GUI and MMC as the
> hypervisor, but that may be a tough sell in the SMB segment. Also,
> while one could run other services and roles on that parent server,
> that would defeat the purpose of having a simple machine *just* to be
> the hypervisor. It seems as though Hyper-V Server is more Hype than
> Server.
>
> That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines
> for this previously uncharted territory?
Some good practices have been developed and some bad practices discovered.
Some have yet to been developed and documented.
> How does one intelligently
> set up and manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine?
There are at least three different scenerios with Micorosoft Hyper-V alone.
Server core with Hyper-V, Hyper-V server (free), and Server 2008 GUI with
Hyper-V role. Each have benefits and seperate approaches.
>Or is it better
> just to stick with installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave
> virtualization to those who have graduated from the SMB space?
Maybe. In my opinion the management challenges are outweighed when second
and subsequent server instances are required and it's beneficial to share
the hardware resources of a single physical server. To implement for the
sole gain of portability seems to me to be wasted management efforts.
> Finally, can an SBS 2008 be virtualized after the fact through some
> sort of conversion process?
I have not tried a physical to virtual (P2V) of SBS2008 but I would expect
several issues. Good question though as this eventually will come into play.
--
/kj
Cliff Galiher
too tightly to make a P2V migration reliable, IMO. You are better doing a
virtual from the gate if you decide to go the virtual route.
As an aside, my opinion on Hyper-V Server is that it is exactly what it is
intended to be. A product to be used in a data center where management
occurs from a management server. In that scenario, you wouldn't fight with
HVRemote because it would already be set up. More importantly, you'd
probably be using a more robust management suite. MS offers SCVMM for
Hyper-V. In the same vein, VMWare offers their infrastructure suite
(virtual center, vmotion, etc) for managing ESX. For managing a *single*
host, whether it is VMWare or MS, the tools are *very* limited, so getting
upset because Hyper-V isn't what you expect is a bit unfair. ESXi is easily
as limited.
You seem to be expecting it to act like a product it simply isn't. That
isn't *crippled* as much as it is just a different approach to understanding
where the product fits in the virtual product offerings space. I, for one,
have no difficulties managing Hyper-V servers where I've installed them
using the command line. I've actually become quite used to just firing off
some powershell commands against a remote hyper-V server. You do it enough
and it becomes second nature. And since powershell can be installed on any
old management box (XP/Vista) there really isn't a reason NOT to have it.
You'll find yourself using powershell to do SBS admin tasks with increasing
frequency as well (or so I predict.)
-Cliff
"kj [SBS MVP]" <Kevin...@SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eMOjBPub...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
AF
<spam...@2000computer.com> wrote:
> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server.
I am amazed that any one in his right mind would try a recordless
product in a production environment. There is a reason why the giants
run vmware.
If I were you, I would try ESXi. If you like it an need a community,
migrate to ESX.
For all that I care, and after I saw apple to apple comparison, as of
now Hyper-V is nothing but hyper marketing, Just like Vista.
My 2 cents.
--
AF
Charlie Russel - MVP
HVRemote exists. I developed the scripts for Server Core, and they weren't
difficult. Tedious, a bit annoying because of the NIC configuration, but not
hard. Those same scripts work perfectly well for Hyper-V Server. Which, by
the way, is a FREE product. As for having to have a GUI management
interface, run a Vista SP1 machine and you have it. Not a huge deal, really.
All that being said, if you're only virtualizing SBS, the more relevant
question is why? Where's the gain? You really shouldn't be running it
virtualized unless you have a compelling reason to. Having a single server
for Premium and SBS itself makes some sense, and thus the desire to
virtualize there. But if all you're doing is your main SBS box, you'll lose
more than you'll gain.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." <spam...@2000computer.com> wrote in message
news:ORBgq7tb...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Charlie Russel - MVP
"Oliver Sommer [MVP]" <o.so...@trinitycomputer.de.removethis> wrote in
message news:fd4107561e8088...@msnews.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines for this
>> previously uncharted territory? How does one intelligently set up and
>> manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine? Or is it better just to stick
>> with installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave virtualization to
>> those who have graduated from the SMB space?
>
> My personal guideline:
>
> 1. no advantage of running just SBS in Hyper-V
True. And some definite advantages
> 2. if you wanne run additional VMs on that host (which becomes an
> advantage), than you need to have decent Hardware for that
Very true. A single proc and 8GB doesn't leave a lot of room for extra
machines, and once you go to the second proc, and 16-32GB, you're talking
some money.
> 3. if decent HW is available SBS Premium sholuld not be an budget issue
Except that if you don't need SQL, why pay for it? I still wish there were a
TS bundle as an option instead of SQL.
SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
> Except that if you don't need SQL, why pay for it? I still wish there were
> a TS bundle as an option instead of SQL.
Yes, for me that would be SWEET. 'Premium CALs (TS Option)' being SBS+TS
CALs, and maybe something in recompense for not requiring SQL Server.
I don't completely agree with the 'you must be expecting to run more than
one server' idea though. I see portability of the 'image' as having value
from a Disaster Recovery perspective.
The main thing I see as counterproductive here is attempting to run before
one walks. I would happily virtualise SBS but then I've been virtualising
everything under the sun under most (I haven't tried all) virtualisation
environments for several years. 'Diving in at the deep end' and learning
both the concept of virtualisation and the particular environment (and how
the guest behaves in that environment) is a healthy chunk to try at one go.
Good on anyone for trying but they are brave to do so.
Susan Bradley
VMware gets it approved.
Charlie Russel - MVP
but otherwise? We definitely agree. And yes, I LIVE (and die sometimes) with
virtualization, so for me it's second nature.
(and as for the TS CALs SKU - I fought for it, but lost. sigh.)
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:%23R0Mhzv...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Eric Visser
(64bits).
My idea is that even if you have one business (SQL) application, you want
SBS Premium.
Now the choice is one physical server (SBS+SQL), or two servers (one 64b/one
32b), or one new physical server. with WS2008 and Hyper-V role enabled.
With HVRemote the environment is quite manageable.
The idea that I can tune my servers with Hyper-V depending on server load is
attractive. Not much experience though. Experimented a bit with the number
of cores in each virtual machine and memory.At the moment each server is
equal, i.e. quad-core and 4GB.
There is also some sw development load; this is done on the SQL machine. So
you do not affect the SBS server with the "production" functions, like mail,
shared folders, printing and Sharepoint.
Last but not least, also the "green" aspect of the new technology was a
deciding factor to go all 64bits.
"Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." <spam...@2000computer.com> wrote in message
news:ORBgq7tb...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
AF
<sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>And the free version of ESX-i leaves that SBS box unsupported until
>VMware gets it approved.
That's it?
--
AF
Cliff Galiher
-Cliff
"AF" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:9e53m499cu77kordk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:40:45 -0500, "Andrew M. Saucci, Jr."
> <spam...@2000computer.com> wrote:
>
>> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server.
> I am amazed that any one in his right mind would try a recordless
> product in a production environment. There is a reason why the giants
> run vmware.
Yeah, vmware has been hypervisor virtualization for a few years longer than
MS. Large companies that made the move early didn't have Hyper-V as an
OPTION, and once invested, aren't going to make a switch. *THAT* is just
silly. That is *not* a valid argument against Hyper-V *now.* Not exactly a
fair comparison.
> If I were you, I would try ESXi. If you like it an need a community,
> migrate to ESX.
How is this different from migrating from Hyper-V Server 2k8 to Windows
Server 2k8 Ent. with Hyper-V role?
> For all that I care, and after I saw apple to apple comparison, as of
> now Hyper-V is nothing but hyper marketing, Just like Vista.
> My 2 cents.
Hyper-V does have a few missing features. Most notably live migrations
(VMotion for VMWare.) But VMWare charges for this extra feature, and this
is coming to Hyper-V in win2k8 R2. ESX is also better with handling SAN
LUNs. Multiple VMs can be hold a LUN and be ready to use it, making for
better HA scenarios. So basically what I'm saying is that there are places
where ESX makes sense. But Hyper-V *is* a rock-solid product for what it
offers (it doesn't overpromise) and is a compelling alternative in many
scenarios. Calling it 'hyper marketing' is truly unfair.
> --
> AF
AF
<cgal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, vmware has been hypervisor virtualization for a few years longer than
>MS. Large companies that made the move early didn't have Hyper-V as an
>OPTION, and once invested, aren't going to make a switch. *THAT* is just
>silly. That is *not* a valid argument against Hyper-V *now.* Not exactly a
>fair comparison.
This thread can go forever, so I will stop here. I will test Hyper V
again in 2010.
--
AF
goldy
and manage virtual machines, interact with them, change their settings, manage
virtual hard disks and virtual networks. Has been very useful for me.