How to image Server 2008?
in [Windows Servers]
|
Prev: windows home server
Next: Mix SAS and SATA Drives
From: DaveMills on 9 Mar 2010 01:22 On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:37:05 -0600, "Phillip Windell" <philwindell(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >The Windows backup built into 2008 is already "image based". It uses VHD >image files. I used to hate the utility, but I have softened somewwhat on >it. There are mulitple retore methods with it, as Kerry Brown was >mentioning. > > >If you start using Virtualization you can leave all this grief behind >because you just keep copies of your VM Images. You also don't have to worry >about situaitons with "differenet hardware" being a problem. I am think of starting to use VMs on W2008 R2. I feel that WSUS, Kaspersky Admin Server and similar are good candidates for VM deployment but maybe Exchange 2010, SQL server etc. would be a bad candidate. Any thought on this. -- Dave Mills There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 9 Mar 2010 03:37 "DaveMills" <DaveMills(a)newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:p2qbp55f3i5259cd6qpr039ic86hv694cl(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:37:05 -0600, "Phillip Windell" <philwindell(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>The Windows backup built into 2008 is already "image based". It uses VHD >>image files. I used to hate the utility, but I have softened somewwhat on >>it. There are mulitple retore methods with it, as Kerry Brown was >>mentioning. >> >> >>If you start using Virtualization you can leave all this grief behind >>because you just keep copies of your VM Images. You also don't have to worry >>about situaitons with "differenet hardware" being a problem. > > I am think of starting to use VMs on W2008 R2. I feel that WSUS, Kaspersky Admin > Server and similar are good candidates for VM deployment but maybe Exchange > 2010, SQL server etc. would be a bad candidate. Any thought on this. > -- > Dave Mills > There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't. There are mixed emotions (lack of a better word) about virtualizing Exchange. The Exchange folks swear by it, but from experience in the past, and I'm talking about 4 years ago, with a customer who had done that with older hardware, it was not successful. I wound up assisting to create a new Ex server and move everything over to it. However with increased CPU speeds, memory speeds and using fast spindle RAID5 setups, you can do it. However, I am still old school with Exchange by keeping it on a physical machine. Same with SQL and a heavy used file server. Just about anything else can be easily virtualized, including DCs. -- Ace This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights. Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution. Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003 Microsoft Certified Trainer Microsoft MVP - Directory Services If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
From: Matija Kapraljevic [Revenger] on 9 Mar 2010 11:12 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:22:09 +0000, DaveMills wrote: > I am think of starting to use VMs on W2008 R2. I feel that WSUS, Kaspersky Admin > Server and similar are good candidates for VM deployment but maybe Exchange > 2010, SQL server etc. would be a bad candidate. Any thought on this. Here's some material on virtualizing SQL Server 2008: http://sqlcat.com/whitepapers/archive/2008/10/03/running-sql-server-2008-in-a-hyper-v-environment-best-practices-and-performance-recommendations.aspx We've deployed one in production and it worked fine. The only thing you should consider when deploying SQL Server on Hyper-V is the number of processors you'll need. Hyper-V can utilize max 4 processors so if you have requirements for more, you wouldn't be able to do that. VMWare's ESX server can utilize 8 processors, and that's as far as it will go at least for the near future. Other than that, it's working fine ...
From: kj [SBS MVP] on 9 Mar 2010 12:08 Matija Kapraljevic [Revenger] wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:22:09 +0000, DaveMills wrote: > >> I am think of starting to use VMs on W2008 R2. I feel that WSUS, >> Kaspersky Admin Server and similar are good candidates for VM >> deployment but maybe Exchange 2010, SQL server etc. would be a bad >> candidate. Any thought on this. > > Here's some material on virtualizing SQL Server 2008: > > http://sqlcat.com/whitepapers/archive/2008/10/03/running-sql-server-2008-in-a-hyper-v-environment-best-practices-and-performance-recommendations.aspx > > We've deployed one in production and it worked fine. The only thing > you should consider when deploying SQL Server on Hyper-V is the > number of processors you'll need. Hyper-V can utilize max 4 > processors so if you have requirements for more, you wouldn't be able > to do that. VMWare's ESX server can utilize 8 processors, and that's > as far as it will go at least for the near future. > > Other than that, it's working fine ... Hyper-V V2 (2008 R2) supports 8 physical processors and up to 64 logical processors. Many of the issues with virtualizing DB servers (like Exchange and SQL) have been around I/O, both disk and network. Recent enhancements have really made this a non issue with properly configured hardware and hypervisor configurations.... inmo at least. -- /kj
From: DaveMills on 9 Mar 2010 17:14
Thanks all I will have think about this. The kit is HP DL380 G5&G6 Dual CPU Quad core. The EXCH will support less than 1500 users mostly on OWA. The G6 will be a file server with 1.3TB. System disk is Raid 1 15k SAS and data on Raid 5 SAS. So I guess I have the headroom. PS Its a school On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:08:58 -0700, "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS(a)SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote: >Matija Kapraljevic [Revenger] wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:22:09 +0000, DaveMills wrote: >> >>> I am think of starting to use VMs on W2008 R2. I feel that WSUS, >>> Kaspersky Admin Server and similar are good candidates for VM >>> deployment but maybe Exchange 2010, SQL server etc. would be a bad >>> candidate. Any thought on this. >> >> Here's some material on virtualizing SQL Server 2008: >> >> http://sqlcat.com/whitepapers/archive/2008/10/03/running-sql-server-2008-in-a-hyper-v-environment-best-practices-and-performance-recommendations.aspx >> >> We've deployed one in production and it worked fine. The only thing >> you should consider when deploying SQL Server on Hyper-V is the >> number of processors you'll need. Hyper-V can utilize max 4 >> processors so if you have requirements for more, you wouldn't be able >> to do that. VMWare's ESX server can utilize 8 processors, and that's >> as far as it will go at least for the near future. >> >> Other than that, it's working fine ... > >Hyper-V V2 (2008 R2) supports 8 physical processors and up to 64 logical >processors. > >Many of the issues with virtualizing DB servers (like Exchange and SQL) have >been around I/O, both disk and network. > >Recent enhancements have really made this a non issue with properly >configured hardware and hypervisor configurations.... inmo at least. -- Dave Mills There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't. |