<rant> JET just expects the files and data it wrote, will be there later and accessible ... this is the simpliest contract that the FS can fufill ... it's really not a "complicated" contract ... yet anti-virus software seems to think it should be allowed to break this most basic functional contract, irrelevant if you could actually execute the file.
That is "broken by design". </rant> -B On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Mulnick, Al wrote: > I can tell Brett needs a little more sugar ;) > > One other question to add to that: are you using AV software and if so, are > you using any exclusions? Both in the VM guest and on the host? > > Just curiuos. And bored. AV is a common piece to look at with jet > technology and may apply here. > > Al > > <no disclaimer so far, but let's just let the same ones apply> > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in Virtual Se > rver 2005 - whitepaper) > > Oh I missed that nme == Noah. Sorry, Noah, this is your thread... ;) Fill > in Your Name. ;) > > But you are changing your scenario if you're talking about RAID IDE. > That's not fair, I can't seperate the issues if you never directly answer > questions, and change the basis for the questions at the same time. IDE > RAID makes it sound like you have basic hardware issues ... if you can't > trust your disk subsystem then that is seperate from VM. > > Was the BSOD you mention on the host or guest? > > The thread seriously splintered ... ugh ... > > You asked about defrag, and I didn't say that a defrag would have little > impact on the system, I don't even think I implied it ... > > I am saying that corruption should not result from running AD or > Exchange in a VM with or without SCSI disks ... at least without > extenuating circumstances. > > I'll go further, and say with proper configuration (SCSI disks, > turn off write cache on host (difficult to do, don't believe > that check box)) extentenuating circumstances should be reduced > to the normal set of extenuating circumstances of storing data on > pretty much the only moving part of the computer. > > Someone suggested raw disk mapping of some sort (don't know about this > option, but I can imagine what it does pretty easily, it's probably even a > good idea) but I'd be careful about defragging that setup, you'd need to > test that. I could imagine something like this not surviving a defrag (and > causing corruption), but I don't really know ... > > Basically I'm interested in understanding the extenuating circumstances: > > Were there power failures/hard reboots, or virtual hard reboots on hosts or > guests under which AD / Exch was running in some form? > > Did you defrag a "raw disk mapped disk" from a VM? > > Did you experience lockups as Aric suggested? > > Also What VM software are you using? > > I am looking forward to the corruption events. Thanks. > > Thanks, > BrettSh > Dev > > <the AS IS and no rights stuff in previous post still applies> > > > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Brett Shirley wrote: > > > NME, > > > > Is that a VM environment? If not what does it have to do with this > > thread? Get your own thread. Just kidding. > > > > Go find the latest jetstress, and pound your disk subsystem, it does > > several pieces of validation, checksums data, timely disk response, > > and usually can keep a high I/O rate. > > > > Cheers, > > BrettSh > > Dev > > > > <the AS IS and no rights stuff in previous post still applies> > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Your Name wrote: > > > > > Well, I am now onsite and the host machine seems to have completely > > > melted down with a BSOD: config_initialization_failed. I have tried > > > various recovery tricks, all to no avail. Reformatting now. > > > > > > I am curious, though, how I can prevent this in the future. I am > > > looking at the IDE RAID card as a potential culprit. > > > > > > -- nme > > > > > > > Noah, > > > > > > > > Just as a point of comparison, I have two Exchange 2003 Servers > > > running > > > > in VMs as well as some domain controllers. Originally they ran > > > > under VMWare GSX for about 9 months and now under VS2005 for about 6 > months. > > > > The only problems I have ever had (aside from performance) > > > > occurred during the move from GSX to VS2005. Originally I had set > > > > up the > > > VS2005 > > > > systems with Virtual SCSI disks, per the white paper. > > > > Unfortunately I experienced VM lockups a dozen times during the > > > > first week. In the troubleshooting effort I switched to Virtual > > > > IDE disks and have not > > > had > > > > a problem since. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Aric > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah > > > > Eiger > > > > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 8:20 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in > > > Virtual > > > > Se rver 2005 - whitepaper) > > > > > > > > I believe the disks are fixed size. (I will check when I get to > > > > the > > > > office) > > > > I will also look a the logs to see the specific errors. > > > > > > > > Brett, does that mean that defragging the underlying OS will have > > > little > > > > impact on the virtual environment? Should I defrag the virtual > > > > disks from within the virtual machine? And, does anyone know if > > > > the 3rd part > > > tools > > > > are > > > > supported in the virtual environment? > > > > > > > > -- nme > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CIT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:34 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in > > > Virtual > > > > Se > > > > rver 2005 - whitepaper) > > > > > > > > Man this sucks, I didn't know this White Paper existed. I have > > > > been working on documenting AD on VM's for both VS2005 and VMware > > > > ESX. > > > > > > > > You might be experiencing the fragmentation due to using the > > > > feature that dynamically expands the volume as it uses disk space. > > > > You might try just mapping raw disk space. > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Brett Shirley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 9:38 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in > > > Virtual > > > > Server 2005 - whitepaper) > > > > > > > > Noah, > > > > > > > > You've piqued my curiousity ... > > > > > > > > What VM software were you using? > > > > > > > > Did you "hard" reboot the VMs? > > > > > > > > You were experiencing actual corruption issues? I guess I'm a > > > > little skeptical. > > > > > > > > Do you remember the nature of the corruptions? Were there AD JET > > > level > > > > recovery issues? If you still have any of the event logs, I'd be > > > > curious to know what JET and AD events you felt indicated > > > > corruption, and the cause of the non-booting DC, get this via > > > > event log in DSRM (DS > > > Restore > > > > Mode). > > > > > > > > I ask, because correctness (i.e. no corruption) should not be > > > sacraficed > > > > b/c the underlying host has a fragmented FS. It should just be > > > slow ... > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Brett Shirley > > > > Dev > > > > > > > > Wooo hoo, I happened upon the actual thingy I'm supposed to put at > > > > the bottom of my mail! Here: > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > > > > confers > > > > no > > > > rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Noah Eiger wrote: > > > > > > > > > A little bit of a tangent: I had built an entire virtual network > > > with > > > > DCs > > > > > and an Exchange server. I started getting tons of serious > > > > > corruption > > > > errors > > > > > in the logs and soon DC2 would just not boot. It turns out that > > > > > the > > > > host > > > > > machine was horribly fragmented. > > > > > > > > > > Is the presence of Exchange a likely culprit? If so, is the > > > > > solution > > > > to > > > > run > > > > > Exchange on a physical box patched in via a physical extension > > > > > of > > > that > > > > > virtual network? > > > > > > > > > > -- nme > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 1:44 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in > > > > Virtual > > > > > Server 2005 - whitepaper) > > > > > > > > > > It's not support in any emulated environment. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris > > > > > Lynch > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 3:14 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: RE: Exchange in VM (was RE: [ActiveDir] Running DCs in > > > > Virtual > > > > > Server 2005 - whitepaper) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > > > Because VS2005 wasn't designed for intensive I/O, CPU or RAM > > > systems. > > > > > VS2005 has on average a 35-45% overhead on the host machine, > > > because > > > > of > > > > > the Host OS. Also, all VM's are running in Emulated Mode on the > > > CPU. > > > > > VMware would be better suited for your need of Exchange running > > > within > > > > a > > > > > VM. > > > > > > > > > > VS2005 doesn't offer the same performance enhancements VMware > > > > > ESX > > > > server > > > > > can, and GSX server for that matter. Ok, GSX doesn't offer CPU > > > > resource > > > > > throttling, like VS2005. But, I would rather spend the extra > > > > > money > > > > for > > > > > GSX, and have a more stable virtualization platform than VS/VPC > > > 2005. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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/
