That brings its own issues (SIDs, etc) that get back into why I don't clone servers. And since you have to stop the entire VM to get a consistent backup for DR, that negates that benefit.
I'm looking at it because we have 3 different web based apps that are all relatively low volume, but all three use different application platforms and they don't play well on the same box. So - 1 server, 3 VM's, one per application. Fortunately, they all use SQL Server as the backend, so they'll tie into our existing SQL farm. -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Milburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > A lot of the VM benefit comes from having a portable image > virtual drive > (ignoring being able to make one computer turn into 5+ at > once, for now) > because it's easy to grab a VM file and move it, unlike > Windows. But does > anyone remember the days of mapping a drive to a server with > a DOS boot disk > and xcopy'ing the files to or from the computer? No ghost, no > sysprep, no > pagefiles, and no 1.2GB basic OS install - just copy copy > boom you're done. > When I moved a Win98 file from my workstation to the lab (98 > fits on a CD), > made 4 copies and in a few minutes had running clones, it > reminded me of > those days... *sigh* > Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:32 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > I also wonder if the virtualization platforms are a dead end > race. Looking > at the newer 64-bit-for-Windows systems, many of the vendors > are building > partitioning into the hardware platform - where speed ceases > to be an issue. > However, that still has the minimum 1 CPU per partition > limitation, at this > point. > > I wonder if it would be possible to build a hardware level > abstraction layer > that does what the software virtualization platforms do now. > I wonder if > that kind of technology is somewhere in the pipeline.... > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:20 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > > > I am not saying VMWare isn't very cool. I enjoy it immensely. Just > > indicating the limitations for Windows support. I think > > anyone who would > > consider using a product in a production environment in a way > > that isn't in > > the end completely supported by the people with the source > > code are slightly > > insane. However my view of production may be slightly > > different and more > > critical than others. > > > > I would like to see MS actually add VMWare to the HCL > > certification process > > and lists. I think that would be a good way to tackle it and > > probably the > > right way, they certify specific versions and don't even have > > to worry about > > underlying hardware, VMWare has to worry about that. However, > > realistically, > > I don't see it happening. If they hadn't gotten into the > > virtualization > > business I don't think they would have had much choice for > > much longer, but > > they did and some of us just said, duh, about time. > > > > Yes I would like to a very stripped down OS with the guests > > running on it > > like ESX. They may be thinking about that but more likely > > right now they are > > thinking about how closely they can tie it to the guts of a > full blown > > Windows OS and make it integral to the core for speed and to > > get away from > > it actually being a separate product. Then after that they > > may look at how > > to strip the host (or someone else - maybe you - will figure > > it out for > > them). > > > > > > joe > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Roger Seielstad > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:54 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > The big thing that VMWare has going for it, and in my option > > it's a big > > thing, is the way they've built ESX server. > > > > The problem with using Virtual Server (or GSX Server from > > VMWare) is that > > you're still running a full blown OS underneath the virtual > > machines. This > > really causes a problem in which a single OS patch which > > requires a reboot > > means that all your VM servers also need to be rebooted - > > even if they're > > not Windows. > > > > ESX server uses a highly stripped down version of the Linux > > kernel[1], and > > few ancillary services. This architecture should result in > > significantly > > fewer issues in which the virtualization platform > > necessitates downtime. I > > lump the virtualization engine more in the hardware than > > software side of > > things - hardware should not require significant > maintenance except in > > break/fix scenarios. > > > > Now, maybe I need to see how hard it is to get Virutal Server > > (or the PC > > equivilent of it) running in WinPE. Maybe that's the fix to > all these > > problems. Of course, there are all those pesky licensing > > issues to deal with > > then..... > > > > Roger > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > [1] My thoughts on Linux in general are relatively well > > known[2] [2] I've > > been quoted as saying "BSD Skunks the Penguin" on more than > > one occasion > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:51 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > > > > > > Well right off the bat... MS doesn't support Windows on > > VMWARE; it is > > > best effort unless Microsoft can determine that the issue can be > > > reproduced on physical hardware. VMWARE claims this is because of > > > competitive reasons but MS never supported it even before > > they bought > > > the Connectix product. > > > > > > >From what I have heard, our dev guys have actually hit > > > things that they > > > couldn't reproduce. > > > > > > Personally I would run Windows on VMWARE all day in a lab (we > > > do) or at home > > > (I did). I wouldn't even start to consider it for > production (never > > > ever ever). If you want to look at virtualization software > > for running > > > Windows, get into the Virtual Server preview program that > MS has as > > > obviously the Windows products will be fully supported on that > > > software. > > > > > > IBM and HP both claim full support for Windows on VMWARE. > > > However you have > > > to keep in mind, what can they really do? If there is a > > problem with > > > VMWARE they can send that info back to the vendor. If they find a > > > problem in Windows they can send that back to MS. They have > > no power > > > to really fix anything. I have had a conversation with one > > of the guys > > > at IBM concerning the support model and in the end he said, > > there is > > > no SLA for software support from anyone - no guarantees... > > Great! He > > > mentioned that all of their VMWARE contracts are one offs > > negotiated > > > specifically with the customer at hand. But again, in the > end, all > > > they can do is pat your hand and say, we understand, yes > that does > > > suck that it doesn't work, but don't worry we sent someone > > a note - if > > > we could fix it ourselves we would, but we can't. > > > > > > I actually stopped using the VMWARE products at home > about 3 months > > > ago and switched to the MS products as I figured I might as > > well get > > > used to it. > > > > > > > > > Here are some links worth reading: > > > > > > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;273508 > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2Fservicedesks > > > %2Fbin%2Fkbsea > > > rch.asp%3FArticle%3D320220 > > > http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/st > > > ory/0,10801,87 > > > 185,00.html > > > > > > > > > joe > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Mike Baudino > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:12 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Server consolidation has us heading towards putting > > production Windows > > > Server 2003 domain controllers on VMWare VMs using ESX. We > > > have not yet > > > deployed AD widely (some business units have it and some > > > don't) but are > > > working on a new design that will handle all business units. > > > Our lab is a > > > combination of physical servers on workstation-class hardware > > > and VMs on > > > VMWare Workstation4 and on ESX. > > > > > > However, our direction for production DC's is VMs on ESX > > > unless we find that > > > it doesn't work properly or well enough. We're going to be > > > testing this in > > > the lab. I've seen recent emails about using VMs to spin > off labs. > > > But does anyone have experience running production DC's on > > > VMs or any known > > > "gotcha's" that they're willing to share? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mike Baudino > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************* PLEASE NOTE ******************* This > > > E-Mail/telefax > > > message and any documents accompanying this transmission > may contain > > > privileged and/or confidential information and is intended > > > solely for the > > > addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended > > > addressee/recipient, > > > you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, > > > distribution, > > > or reliance on the contents of this E-Mail/telefax > > > information is strictly > > > prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please > > > reply to the > > > sender advising of the error in transmission and immediately > > > delete/destroy > > > the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you. > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > > > List info : > > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE------- > PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in > this message or > any attachments. This information is strictly confidential and may be > subject to attorney-client privilege. This message is > intended only for the > use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended > recipient of this > message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, > distribution, or using > such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > If you have > received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender > by reply e-mail > and immediately destroy this message. Unauthorized > interception of this > e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. Applebee's > International, > Inc. reserves the right to monitor and review the content of > all messages > sent to and from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or > from this e-mail > address may be stored on the Applebee's International, Inc. > e-mail system. > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
