Sql and Terminal Server (adding to SBS network) on same box Virtual or not
|
Prev: SBS2000 to Windows Server 2003 - any experts?
Next: SBS2008 Redirected Folders and Laptop away from network, where are files locally?
From: MM on 30 Apr 2010 18:34 I am cosolidating two LAN's into one using an existing SBS2003 R2 setup with 35 clients as the base. I need to add two (+Sql, +Terminal Server) member servers The client already owns Sql 2008 Std licence with 50 Cals and W2K8 Std Server. They have a Dell 2900 Server (2x XEON 3.0 GHZ prcessors, 16GB Ram (max 64GB) 8x146GB SCSI drives, 667 BUS) to redeploy. I am considering putting both Sql + Terminal Server on this hardware. I have not (I feel like I'm the only one that hasn't) done a VMWare setup and I'm wondering if this setup should done in VMWARE or normal or should these two servers be separate hardware? Suggestions, comments?
From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP] on 30 Apr 2010 23:36 Rather than VMWare I would, these days, be more likely to use '1+1 rights' from Server08 Standard and use HyperV (preferably R2). I would also run the drives as a single RAID6 array. I would _possibly_ also exercise downgrade rights on the Server08 and instead of 1+1 user the free MS Hyper-V Server as my SBS03 CALs would then cover access to the 2nd server. I would also consider a 3rd server license so that SQL was separate from TS. Separation of these tasks is desirable but actually, IM(limited)E, it is less problematic than other 'shared duty' scenarios. It's uncertain from your description whether you are looking to 1 instance as TS+SQL or 1 instance for each. You suggest you are 'consolidating'. With reference to available licenses and knowledge that the SBS03 CALs cover access to all <=Server03, but not Server08, how does this affect your costs? and is the difference in cost justification to remain at 03. You will still be able to use SQL08, using the separate and already purchased SQL CALs. 35 Server08 CALs is not an insubstantial cost, nor prohibitive in the percieved environment. Whether the guest systems are 03 or 08 I suggest you have sufficient resources on the metal to run 3 Windows child instances, each allocated 4GB RAM. Leaving 4GB for the parent, ie. no additional RAM required. Got another task? the parent doesn't need 4GB :-) Some would suggest 4*RAID1. I'm not gonna argue with them. I think the performance difference would be negligible. and I don't have a particular reason for suggesting HyperV, VMWare ESX(i) is an excellent product. No matter about the OS levels, I guess you know you need, or already have, TS CALs. "MM" <nosend2me(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d3119d36-6a7a-432e-a790-9a56050ae731(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >I am cosolidating two LAN's into one using an existing SBS2003 R2 > setup with 35 clients as the base. I need to add two (+Sql, +Terminal > Server) member servers The client already owns Sql 2008 Std licence > with 50 Cals and W2K8 Std Server. > > They have a Dell 2900 Server (2x XEON 3.0 GHZ prcessors, 16GB Ram (max > 64GB) 8x146GB SCSI drives, 667 BUS) to redeploy. I am considering > putting both Sql + Terminal Server on this hardware. I have not (I > feel like I'm the only one that hasn't) done a VMWare setup and I'm > wondering if this setup should done in VMWARE or normal or should > these two servers be separate hardware? > > Suggestions, comments?
From: MM on 1 May 2010 15:04 On Apr 30, 11:36 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...(a)your.nellie> wrote: > Rather than VMWare I would, these days, be more likely to use '1+1 rights' > from Server08 Standard and use HyperV (preferably R2). > I would also run the drives as a single RAID6 array. > I would _possibly_ also exercise downgrade rights on the Server08 and > instead of 1+1 user the free MS Hyper-V Server as my SBS03 CALs would then > cover access to the 2nd server. > I would also consider a 3rd server license so that SQL was separate from TS. > Separation of these tasks is desirable but actually, IM(limited)E, it is > less problematic than other 'shared duty' scenarios. It's uncertain from > your description whether you are looking to 1 instance as TS+SQL or 1 > instance for each. > > You suggest you are 'consolidating'. With reference to available licenses > and knowledge that the SBS03 CALs cover access to all <=Server03, but not > Server08, how does this affect your costs? and is the difference in cost > justification to remain at 03. You will still be able to use SQL08, using > the separate and already purchased SQL CALs. 35 Server08 CALs is not an > insubstantial cost, nor prohibitive in the percieved environment. > > Whether the guest systems are 03 or 08 I suggest you have sufficient > resources on the metal to run 3 Windows child instances, each allocated 4GB > RAM. Leaving 4GB for the parent, ie. no additional RAM required. Got another > task? the parent doesn't need 4GB :-) > > Some would suggest 4*RAID1. I'm not gonna argue with them. I think the > performance difference would be negligible. > > and I don't have a particular reason for suggesting HyperV, VMWare ESX(i) is > an excellent product. > > No matter about the OS levels, I guess you know you need, or already have, > TS CALs. > > "MM" <nosend...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d3119d36-6a7a-432e-a790-9a56050ae731(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > >I am cosolidating two LAN's into one using an existing SBS2003 R2 > > setup with 35 clients as the base. I need to add two (+Sql, +Terminal > > Server) member servers The client already owns Sql 2008 Std licence > > with 50 Cals and W2K8 Std Server. > > > They have a Dell 2900 Server (2x XEON 3.0 GHZ prcessors, 16GB Ram (max > > 64GB) 8x146GB SCSI drives, 667 BUS) to redeploy. I am considering > > putting both Sql + Terminal Server on this hardware. I have not (I > > feel like I'm the only one that hasn't) done a VMWare setup and I'm > > wondering if this setup should done in VMWARE or normal or should > > these two servers be separate hardware? > > > Suggestions, comments? Thanks for the comments, I'm aware of the need (TS license for '08) and plan to pitch "swinging" to to SBS08. I was planning for the 8 Disks as RAID5 + Hotpare or RAID6 (same drive space either way). The VM setup would be 1 child instance SQL + 1 Child Instance TS. Current setup includes two W2K TS (lic covered by SBS) and one is an old low end desktop box, This is the one being replaced, perhaps I just move it to the child instance on this new box (initially) with no new licensing costs, get the new SQL Box up and then sell them on moving to SBS '08. I'm leaning toward the VM setup and (having never done a VM setup) I am building one up on my test server to play around, I've heard directly good comments about the latest version of VMWare ESX(i) and would like to hear feedback on it and other alternatives. I'll be finalizing a quote for the job this weekend and to send for Monday so any real life experience comments with set up and configuration would be appreciated. Production date for the server is not till end of June so I have time to learn it as I go.
From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP] on 1 May 2010 20:13 I can see a bit of a logistics problem if you move all three (SBS03, SQL, TS) servers to the new box in 16GB RAM, with planned migration to SBS08 also as a child. During the migration you will want both SBS03 and SBS08 up and depending on your migration strategy (MS ve SBSMigration.com) and timing (there is some crossover time in MS strategy, much more available in SBSMigration) may also wish for your TS and SQL to be available through part of the migration process. You could squeeze it into 16Gb by adjusting the child RAM allocations but, honestly, 3*200x(1 being SBS03) + 1*SBS08 children is gonna push that hardware. More RAM, which may only be _required_ for the migration is certainly worth consideration, particularly if you move everything virtual now. In your final setup, SBS08 for 35 users and virtualised alonside SQL for similar number, I'd certainly be looking to more RAM. Maybe 12-14GB for SBS08 and 6-10 for SQL.32GB RAM in the host would leave a nice amount for TS08, and deal with the migration. Comment rather than specific. SBS owners are used to 'all their eggs in one basket' as most SBS domains are, or have been in the past, single server environments. Do you really wish to rely on a single box to provide all three functions for 35 users? In a _very_ similar recent project proposal I decided on 2 Hyper-V servers accessing shared storage, Host1 would run SBS08(45 user now, expected to grow to 60 soon), Host2 for SQL+TS as separate VMs, both boxes having 16GB RAM or more. The idea being that if either host had a hardware problem the other could, temporarily, pick up the load. We were also looking at redundancy in the shared storage. Project has gone on hold, decisions need to be made. Have a _real good_ play with virtualisation. Whatever environment you choose will be subject to particular limitations. Does SBSFax, should you wish to use such, work reliably using a modem and COM port redirection from the host? How about backup? using either SBSBackup or 3rd party? Failure scenarios deserve more attention than 'normal operation', we _KNOW_ virtualisation works but how do we handle something going wrong? "MM" <nosend2me(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8ad06ca9-9782-4239-b947-77c90c62f4ea(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On Apr 30, 11:36 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...(a)your.nellie> wrote: > Rather than VMWare I would, these days, be more likely to use '1+1 rights' > from Server08 Standard and use HyperV (preferably R2). > I would also run the drives as a single RAID6 array. > I would _possibly_ also exercise downgrade rights on the Server08 and > instead of 1+1 user the free MS Hyper-V Server as my SBS03 CALs would then > cover access to the 2nd server. > I would also consider a 3rd server license so that SQL was separate from > TS. > Separation of these tasks is desirable but actually, IM(limited)E, it is > less problematic than other 'shared duty' scenarios. It's uncertain from > your description whether you are looking to 1 instance as TS+SQL or 1 > instance for each. > > You suggest you are 'consolidating'. With reference to available licenses > and knowledge that the SBS03 CALs cover access to all <=Server03, but not > Server08, how does this affect your costs? and is the difference in cost > justification to remain at 03. You will still be able to use SQL08, using > the separate and already purchased SQL CALs. 35 Server08 CALs is not an > insubstantial cost, nor prohibitive in the percieved environment. > > Whether the guest systems are 03 or 08 I suggest you have sufficient > resources on the metal to run 3 Windows child instances, each allocated > 4GB > RAM. Leaving 4GB for the parent, ie. no additional RAM required. Got > another > task? the parent doesn't need 4GB :-) > > Some would suggest 4*RAID1. I'm not gonna argue with them. I think the > performance difference would be negligible. > > and I don't have a particular reason for suggesting HyperV, VMWare ESX(i) > is > an excellent product. > > No matter about the OS levels, I guess you know you need, or already have, > TS CALs. > > "MM" <nosend...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d3119d36-6a7a-432e-a790-9a56050ae731(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > >I am cosolidating two LAN's into one using an existing SBS2003 R2 > > setup with 35 clients as the base. I need to add two (+Sql, +Terminal > > Server) member servers The client already owns Sql 2008 Std licence > > with 50 Cals and W2K8 Std Server. > > > They have a Dell 2900 Server (2x XEON 3.0 GHZ prcessors, 16GB Ram (max > > 64GB) 8x146GB SCSI drives, 667 BUS) to redeploy. I am considering > > putting both Sql + Terminal Server on this hardware. I have not (I > > feel like I'm the only one that hasn't) done a VMWare setup and I'm > > wondering if this setup should done in VMWARE or normal or should > > these two servers be separate hardware? > > > Suggestions, comments? Thanks for the comments, I'm aware of the need (TS license for '08) and plan to pitch "swinging" to to SBS08. I was planning for the 8 Disks as RAID5 + Hotpare or RAID6 (same drive space either way). The VM setup would be 1 child instance SQL + 1 Child Instance TS. Current setup includes two W2K TS (lic covered by SBS) and one is an old low end desktop box, This is the one being replaced, perhaps I just move it to the child instance on this new box (initially) with no new licensing costs, get the new SQL Box up and then sell them on moving to SBS '08. I'm leaning toward the VM setup and (having never done a VM setup) I am building one up on my test server to play around, I've heard directly good comments about the latest version of VMWare ESX(i) and would like to hear feedback on it and other alternatives. I'll be finalizing a quote for the job this weekend and to send for Monday so any real life experience comments with set up and configuration would be appreciated. Production date for the server is not till end of June so I have time to learn it as I go.
From: MM on 1 May 2010 22:30
On May 1, 8:13 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...(a)your.nellie> wrote: > I can see a bit of a logistics problem if you move all three (SBS03, SQL, > TS) servers to the new box in 16GB RAM, with planned migration to SBS08 also > as a child. During the migration you will want both SBS03 and SBS08 up and > depending on your migration strategy (MS ve SBSMigration.com) and timing > (there is some crossover time in MS strategy, much more available in > SBSMigration) may also wish for your TS and SQL to be available through part > of the migration process. You could squeeze it into 16Gb by adjusting the > child RAM allocations but, honestly, 3*200x(1 being SBS03) + 1*SBS08 > children is gonna push that hardware. More RAM, which may only be _required_ > for the migration is certainly worth consideration, particularly if you move > everything virtual now. > > In your final setup, SBS08 for 35 users and virtualised alonside SQL for > similar number, I'd certainly be looking to more RAM. Maybe 12-14GB for > SBS08 and 6-10 for SQL.32GB RAM in the host would leave a nice amount for > TS08, and deal with the migration. > > Comment rather than specific. > SBS owners are used to 'all their eggs in one basket' as most SBS domains > are, or have been in the past, single server environments. Do you really > wish to rely on a single box to provide all three functions for 35 users? In > a _very_ similar recent project proposal I decided on 2 Hyper-V servers > accessing shared storage, Host1 would run SBS08(45 user now, expected to > grow to 60 soon), Host2 for SQL+TS as separate VMs, both boxes having 16GB > RAM or more. The idea being that if either host had a hardware problem the > other could, temporarily, pick up the load. We were also looking at > redundancy in the shared storage. Project has gone on hold, decisions need > to be made. > > Have a _real good_ play with virtualisation. Whatever environment you choose > will be subject to particular limitations. Does SBSFax, should you wish to > use such, work reliably using a modem and COM port redirection from the > host? How about backup? using either SBSBackup or 3rd party? Failure > scenarios deserve more attention than 'normal operation', we _KNOW_ > virtualisation works but how do we handle something going wrong? > > "MM" <nosend...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8ad06ca9-9782-4239-b947-77c90c62f4ea(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 30, 11:36 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...(a)your.nellie> wrote: > > > > > > > Rather than VMWare I would, these days, be more likely to use '1+1 rights' > > from Server08 Standard and use HyperV (preferably R2). > > I would also run the drives as a single RAID6 array. > > I would _possibly_ also exercise downgrade rights on the Server08 and > > instead of 1+1 user the free MS Hyper-V Server as my SBS03 CALs would then > > cover access to the 2nd server. > > I would also consider a 3rd server license so that SQL was separate from > > TS. > > Separation of these tasks is desirable but actually, IM(limited)E, it is > > less problematic than other 'shared duty' scenarios. It's uncertain from > > your description whether you are looking to 1 instance as TS+SQL or 1 > > instance for each. > > > You suggest you are 'consolidating'. With reference to available licenses > > and knowledge that the SBS03 CALs cover access to all <=Server03, but not > > Server08, how does this affect your costs? and is the difference in cost > > justification to remain at 03. You will still be able to use SQL08, using > > the separate and already purchased SQL CALs. 35 Server08 CALs is not an > > insubstantial cost, nor prohibitive in the percieved environment. > > > Whether the guest systems are 03 or 08 I suggest you have sufficient > > resources on the metal to run 3 Windows child instances, each allocated > > 4GB > > RAM. Leaving 4GB for the parent, ie. no additional RAM required. Got > > another > > task? the parent doesn't need 4GB :-) > > > Some would suggest 4*RAID1. I'm not gonna argue with them. I think the > > performance difference would be negligible. > > > and I don't have a particular reason for suggesting HyperV, VMWare ESX(i) > > is > > an excellent product. > > > No matter about the OS levels, I guess you know you need, or already have, > > TS CALs. > > > "MM" <nosend...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:d3119d36-6a7a-432e-a790-9a56050ae731(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com.... > > > >I am cosolidating two LAN's into one using an existing SBS2003 R2 > > > setup with 35 clients as the base. I need to add two (+Sql, +Terminal > > > Server) member servers The client already owns Sql 2008 Std licence > > > with 50 Cals and W2K8 Std Server. > > > > They have a Dell 2900 Server (2x XEON 3.0 GHZ prcessors, 16GB Ram (max > > > 64GB) 8x146GB SCSI drives, 667 BUS) to redeploy. I am considering > > > putting both Sql + Terminal Server on this hardware. I have not (I > > > feel like I'm the only one that hasn't) done a VMWare setup and I'm > > > wondering if this setup should done in VMWARE or normal or should > > > these two servers be separate hardware? > > > > Suggestions, comments? > > Thanks for the comments, I'm aware of the need (TS license for '08) > and plan to pitch "swinging" to to SBS08. I was planning for the 8 > Disks as RAID5 + Hotpare or RAID6 (same drive space either way). > > The VM setup would be 1 child instance SQL + 1 Child Instance TS. > Current setup includes two W2K TS (lic covered by SBS) and one is an > old low end desktop box, This is the one being replaced, perhaps I > just move it to the child instance on this new box (initially) with no > new licensing costs, get the new SQL Box up and then sell them on > moving to SBS '08. > > I'm leaning toward the VM setup and (having never done a VM setup) I > am building one up on my test server to play around, I've heard > directly good comments about the latest version of VMWare ESX(i) and > would like to hear feedback on it and other alternatives. I'll be > finalizing a quote for the job this weekend and to send for Monday so > any real life experience comments with set up and configuration would > be appreciated. Production date for the server is not till end of June > so I have time to learn it as I go.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think I've confused you - not hard seeing as I am confused :) Not planning to VM existing SBS03.... it stays as and where is until _SWING_ to 08. Current set up with 35 clients Server1 SBS03 (2NIC ISA, Exchnage, Sql etc... all in good order) Server2 TS01 Server3 TS02 (on desktop old harware) Comany 1 has merged with Company 2 with go live date July 1 Company 2 has ERP that is very intense SQL use currrently 50+ clients (will end up with 25-30 after merger) Plan is to have one TS to handle ERP/SQL app. Stage 1 Add user accounts to SBS Trash Current Server 3 (it serves no pratical use other than it had full acrobat licence that they like to use) Set up W2K8 Server + SQL on VM to handle Company 2 SQL stuff Set up (move of Server3 to new hardware) W2K TS on VM with Company 2 ERP app Stage 2 Swing to SBS08, consider further VM/Consolidation of hardware for long term |