Virtualisation of servers help needed

[autumn]

Hi all

I'm after some help. I'm looking at upgrading a customer which currently have the following:

15 - 20 users, 15 computers, all at one site, they have been talking about a second site but that's been talk for at least 5 years, no action as yet.
2 servers:- 1 - sbs 2003 std currently general file sharing and exchange
2 - 2003 std which has two progress databases on it, an legacy DOS which is used for reference data as it wasn't cost effective to migrate to the new progress database. Different software vendors.

Now I was looking at just changing over with two new servers (customer is fine with) then thought virtualisation the database server into a new SBS server might be the way to go. One problem is the legacy database they don't have support for anymore and changing the server for it is going to be a pain. I was going to leave that server running until it dies and then say no more, which the client is happy with but if I can get a better solution ie less servers doing the same work I think they would even love that.

Now I haven't done any virtualisation before, I am registered with VMware but used anything yet. What is the hardware requirements really needed? I was thinking each VM would need its own hard drive set of RAID's, or is that a wrong assumption? I was thinking that as a speed issue. The new progress database is mission critical. I've heard that VM's can turn them on and off as needed in someway, which is what I was considering with the legacy database (used maybe once a month).

What I tend to do at the moment with servers are, Intel server clones with two sets of HDD's one for OS and other for data. What I was looking at doing was three sets of HDD first for sbs os, and virtual server os for new database, second for data (word excel etc) and exchange, third for new database data and running the old database OS and data.

I don't know what virtualisation vendor to use either, I am thinking of VMware (don't know what version) but may be Hyper-V.

Hoping that make sense.

Regards

Tim

 

[angry_geek]

You don't mention current hardware configurations or estimated load on the current resources, so I'll try to be general here. I would go with a Dell T610 server. Configure it with dual Xeon quad-cores or better and at least 16 GB of ram. I have to check, but I believe sever '08 R2 standard will allow at least 2 VM's in Hyper-V. For storage, it really depends on what they're currently using. I would do a raid 1 of 450 GB 15k sas drives for your vhd's. I usually include a larger storage array for file sharing and os and leave the fast drives for your workload. If you have a technet pro subscription, you have access to System Center Virtual Machine Manager. This will allow you to convert your physical machines to Hyper-V guests with them still running. When it's done, you simply confirm networking is configured properly and turn off the physical machines.

If you include some more info, we may be able to offer more advice.

 

[autumn]

current hardware is about 5 to 7 years old. the DB server, Server 2003 std is Xeon 3 Ghz, 4 G ram, 150 G HDD RAID 1 partitioned into 4 (what the orginal DB company wanted) total space used about 100 G. The SBS server currently 2003, 2 x Xeon E5420, 4 G Ram, 500 G HDD RAID 1 single partition with 300 G used space (has Exchange and user data on it). Is this all you need?

"I believe sever '08 R2 standard will allow at least 2 VM's in Hyper-V."

So does this mean I'd need to have Server 2008 as the say primary OS? would you install SBS as a VM? SB is mainly for exchange. Would you go Office 365? Which I haven't looked at all at yet?

"For storage, it really depends on what they're currently using. I would do a raid 1 of 450 GB 15k sas drives for your vhd's. I usually include a larger storage array for file sharing and os and leave the fast drives for your workload."

SO would this be for each of the vhd's or all on one?

"If you have a technet pro subscription, you have access to System Center Virtual Machine Manager."

I'm a MS partner and I think I have access to this.

 

[angry_geek]

Server '08 as host OS. You won't need to install guest operating systems as you'll be doing p2v (physical to virtual) conversions. When you're done, the virtual machines will be exact duplicates of your current physical servers. Unless you want to migrate to current operating systems which is much more involved. It seems they're using a lot of hdd space. If that's actual data and not duplicated fluff, you'll need more storage. Perhaps raid 10 with 4 drives or a comparable configuration. I'll respond more tomorrow. A little tired at the moment.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I agree with the Dell PE 600 series....610 on its way out, 620 the incoming new model...just did a 620 in a Hyper-V deployment at a client.

I did a pair of 300 gig drives RAID 1 for the Server 08 Hyper-V install, and for the C partition of the 2x guest instances.

And 4 drives in RAID 10 for the data storage (D partitions) of the guests.

I still like to split spindles for the servers system and data volumes...superior performance.

Depending on your version of Progress.....if it's really old and single threaded.....I'd save money and just go with a single Xeon processor. SBS for 15 users...IMO you have a light load. Can always add another Xeon down the road if needed.

 

[angry_geek]

Agreed with stonecat. That second CPU is unnecessary at this point considering what they have currently. You can always add it later if they have a need. Storage is going to be your primary concern. Configure your chassis with the hot-swap 3.5 inch option. A good trick with Dell is to order it with the minimum ram option, then order crucial ecc ram from another vendor. This will save you a couple hundred dollars.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

OP..I'm curious what program(s) your client has that uses the old versions of Progress. I work with Progress often at clients....I see it in healthcare, and I see it in non-profit fund raising software (such as FIMS). I never ran into it back in the DOS/Win3 days though.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Configure your chassis with the hot-swap 3.5 inch option.

Curious why you're opting for the (on their way to retirement) 3.5 inchers?

 

[angry_geek]

Curious why you're opting for the (on their way to retirement) 3.5 inchers?

Price, capacity and availability. I usually order my fast drives from Dell. I found a good source for caddies from an Amazon merchant based in St Louis, and I order my near line drives from Amazon or Newegg. Saves a load of money. Once enterprise SSD's and 2.5" SAS drives get a little more reasonable, I'll start running those.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Price, capacity and availability. I usually order my fast drives from Dell. I found a good source for caddies from an Amazon merchant based in St Louis, and I order my near line drives from Amazon or Newegg. Saves a load of money. Once enterprise SSD's and 2.5" SAS drives get a little more reasonable, I'll start running those.

Ahh. Yeah still a bit of a diff in $..with the true SAS.
I do like the 2.5" for less noise, less heat output, and their seek times are so much less than 3.5". The 3.5" still has the transfer speed edge though. So depending upon purpose of server...one can give an edge over the other.

3.5" drives for HP Proliants are starting to get harder to find....I do wonder about how much longer they'll be available, which steers my decision in new servers (wondering if I'll be able to find replacement drives in 4 or 5 more years).

 

[angry_geek]

I can see a shift coming to enterprise ssd's within the next couple of years if they can work out some issues. It's hard to justify $900 for a 256 GB drive, especially when you're talking raid 10. I'm also not sure how I feel about plopping a database on a drive with a finite lifespan concerning write cycles. However, it does solve the problem with the 2.5/3.5 issue. The Proliant series has been quite the workhorse for a while, but I'm not a fan of what HP has been doing the last few years business wise and with r&d. I've also had really good experiences with Dell business and enterprise support. I consulted with a client in Chicago a while ago on a new infrastructure. I basically acted as a project manager and collected a check. I was only on site three times from initial consultation to implementation. Dell did everything I told them without hesitation and never once tried to cut me out. The customer was more than impressed.

 

[autumn]

OK a couple of things, the service that is running for the older progress db says it's Progress 9.1D and the new DB is Openedge 10.1C. If the older one is windows base then this isn't setup as it's texted base and things like the printers have to be set manually in the client on each pc. These are used as a frieght management system.

Ok I think I'll have to do some read on as how hyper -v is set up. Forgive me if I wrong Stonecat when you say

"I did a pair of 300 gig drives RAID 1 for the Server 08 Hyper-V install, and for the C partition of the 2x guest instances.

And 4 drives in RAID 10 for the data storage (D partitions) of the guests."

You only have to sets of RAID's one for the primary OS and the other for the virtual systems and data. is that right?

Angry_Geek :- I was looking at upgrading the OS on the DB server and having two VM's one for the old and one for the new but you have got me thinking the one VM would be fine as that's how they are working at the moment. I'll check with the software vendor if the will require an update OS in the near future. Knowing these guys most likely not. What are the licensing requirements for the OS's in the VM, they are OEM's.

This would solve another issue down the track as I may need to set up a TS and I could use the the second Hyper-v for that, yes?

With the Dell stuff, I not a big Dell person so, I'll check it out and see what else i could get as a comparision.

Thanks Tim

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Oh...OK that's still a newer version of Progress....and OpenEdge often goes hand 'n hand with it. The client that I'm at right now, Progress runs their healthcare database on the server, and OpenEdge is the client counterpart of their mobile laptops.

Caution regarding the older style database...and your possibility of updating the OS...if you go to Server08, you'll have SMB 2.0...which can be painfully slow for older apps. You can flip the server back to SMB1 with a registry edit and quick reboot.

Regarding the servers...with Hyper-V, and/or ESX smaller setups....I'll often do the server with a pair of drives RAID 1 for the server C drive...and a big RAID 10 for the servers big D drive

When I create/install guests....I put the C drive of the guest(s) on the C drive of the host server...and I'll put their data volumes on the servers D drive.

For much larger setups..such as the client I'm at now, they run on VMWare Essentials, I have 2x physical servers, both sharing a big HP MSA 1000 fiber SAN, both physical servers are running ESX...splitting the load of 8 guest servers. The SAN is shopped up into lots of various RAID1 and RAID 5 and RAID 10 volumes...based on the guests. Some sharing, some dedicated for a guest.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I can see a shift coming to enterprise ssd's within the next couple of years if they can work out some issues. It's hard to justify $900 for a 256 GB drive, especially when you're talking raid 10. I'm also not sure how I feel about plopping a database on a drive with a finite lifespan concerning write cycles. However, it does solve the problem with the 2.5/3.5 issue. The Proliant series has been quite the workhorse for a while, but I'm not a fan of what HP has been doing the last few years business wise and with r&d. I've also had really good experiences with Dell business and enterprise support. I consulted with a client in Chicago a while ago on a new infrastructure. I basically acted as a project manager and collected a check. I was only on site three times from initial consultation to implementation. Dell did everything I told them without hesitation and never once tried to cut me out. The customer was more than impressed.

I'm with ya on the SSDs....I've not done a server with any yet.

 

[angry_geek]

Tim, if you do hyper-v with scvmm, you shouldn't have to worry about upgrading your guest operating systems. They, literally, get cloned. Your existing '03 licenses are still valid, though you may have to reactivate them after the p2v conversion. Server '08 standard will allow you one guest '08 install and one host install with the same key. So you will actually have the capability of running your two '03 vm's and one '08 vm on top of your hyper-v host. I don't count the host as a machine as you normally don't want any other roles installed other than hyper-v. This leaves all your resources to be allocated to your guest vm's.

Edit: You do not want to use SBS as your host. I'm not even sure if hyper-v is supported under SBS. You can run SBS as a vm without any issues at all. I do this sometimes in multi-server environments with small exchange setups.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Edit: You do not want to use SBS as your host. I'm not even sure if hyper-v is supported under SBS.

True....SBS as a child (guest)...but not as the host....with the hyper-v role added to it.

Hyper-V is supported under SBS..but only when talking about SBS Premium where you got the second instance of Server 08...and you could install that instance as the Hyper-V host, still using that license key as a guest.

 

[nlinecomputers]

SSD fail based on use. In a raid stack that would mean most would tend to fail at the same time. Raid is fine when one drive goes down. More then one not so much. I'll pass on SSD for servers or any RAID setup.

 

[autumn]

Ok you've cleared that up. just to make sure

...................................................... Server 08 with hyer-v host

hyer-v sets ....................... server 03 with DB's ..................... sbs 03

Now getting into a bit more, is the server 08 hyer-v host a secondary DC, (because that would be up first) then the SBS be primary DC.

Should I look into Office365 for their emails and ditch the SBS? If I used SBS I would upgrade it, angr_geek you siad this is more hassle, would do you mean?

Should/would you set up the hyer-V host as a file server if I went to Office 365?

I haven't considered Office365 yet but just having a quick look and in Australia as least it looks like it's only available as a reseller through one of the major telco's (unless you have over 250 pc's). And the support is by the Telco not Microsoft, this telco has bad support so it might not be a good thing.

 

[angry_geek]

Ideally, your host server only has the Hyper-V role installed, nothing else no matter how tempted you are. I have in the past set up the host machine as a DC, but I was not pleased with the results. I also tend to be a bit paranoid about the security of my Domain Controllers. I usually don't even join the host machine to the domain; I just lock it down and let it live on its own. If you do join it to your domain, you will discover one issue. You won't be able to log onto it until your DC spools up.

So, your config would look like this:
----Hyper-V role installed on physical server
-----------VM 1 within Hyper-V
-----------VM 2 within Hyper_v

Set your DC to spool up first upon reboot with 60 second delay. Secondary server with 120 second delay.

As far as Office 365, I love it, and I think stonecat sells it a lot also. I don't know how the program is structured in Australia. Here in the states, we can buy it directly from Microsoft or sell it under our partner accounts through a channel provider and receive a commission. You can also join it to your domain to make management and integration easy.

As for upgrading SBS '03 to '08, it's not as simple as upgrading a desktop OS. You need to do a lot of prep work to insure everything migrates properly. You're basically looking at a clean install and migration. If it were just domain roles and exchange, it's not so bad. What concerns me are your Progress databases and programs. These are not so easy to migrate without software support. What I would do in your case, is contact your software vendor, explain that you are wanting to migrate their server to '08, and ask what is involved on their end for migrating the database and applications. Usually, they will want to schedule this, and typically will charge for their end of the work as it falls outside of most service contracts. Doing a straight p2v conversion, on the other hand, negates all of that because you're just doing a straight clone of the existing system.

Hope this helps.

 

[autumn]

Ok understand about the DC issues.

With the migration of sbs from 03 to 11/08 I've done a number of these before so I understand about the migration process, I take it's going to be the same except for the VM environment.

I'm thinking of doing a p2v now for the db server this would solve the problem with software vendors which the older DB I don't have support for. (2 DB's doing simular things but by different software vendors). I'm thinking if the current software company wants a newer OS then I'll create a new VM for them. One thing I'm wondering about and the drivers between the physical server and the VM server, how does the OS/VM handle this? As if you just tried to ghost the OS from one machine to another you can run into driver problems, is this the case with the p2v process?

Thanks for the help again.