I have a few notes on general best practices for building Virtual Servers on my website if that is any help: http://robertmoir.com/blogs/someone_else/archive/2006/03/12/2155.aspx
-- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP for Windows Servers & Security Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College Right vs. Wrong | Good vs. Evil God vs. the devil | What side you on? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > Sent: 13 June 2006 03:07 > To: [email protected] > Subject: OT: Re: Was: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs - Now: Question on > tuning Virtual Server > > There's this: > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=64DB845D-F7A3- > 4209-8ED2-E261A117FC6B&displaylang=en > > And then > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default.mspx > > And > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=64DB845D-F7A3- > 4209-8ED2-E261A117FC6B&displaylang=en > > But now that you mention it, I don't think a collective best practice > for general usage is something I've seen. > > > > > On 6/12/06, Lucas, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re-post > > > > Administrator > > Texas Christian University > > (817) 257-6971 > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Lucas, Bryan > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:05 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs > > > > Along these lines, has anyone seen an actual best practices > whitepaper for MS Virtual Server? How to configure disk arrays, > controller cache, how many VHDs per volume, memory allocation, etc. > > > > Bryan Lucas > > Server Administrator > > Texas Christian University > > (817) 257-6971 > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Presley, Steven > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:23 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs > > > > This is absolutely true. I know virtualization scares a lot of > people, but the fact is that in some environments virtualizing systems > saves a great deal of money and actually makes managing systems much > easier (here it has reportedly saved a "significant" amount in hardware > cost for the enterprise). I have been closely watching my Exchange > servers ever since our AD side of the house started virtualizing DC's > and with domain controllers running on ESX servers in an optimized > configuration the performance is very close to hardware. I have > noticed that in terms of LDAP performance that VM's are a tad bit > slower then hardware, but that "tad" is well within the range of > performance that applications like Exchange require. After over a year > of having virtualized DC's we have not had any problems with > virtualized domain controllers (placed globally on ESX servers around > the world). We do, however, work on the side of caution and do > maintain a few hardware DC's in our HQ that own FSMO roles, but I've > seen nothing to suggest that they could not be on VM's to date (it's > just a precaution). > > > > I have to admit at first I totally dismissed virtualization > because I considered it, like others, as more of a development\test > environment solution, however I have since been convinced after working > with virtualized OS's that it has it's place (we have 100's if not > 1000's of virtualized hosts currently in production). I/O intensive > applications are not a good place for virtualization in production, but > other less I/O intensive applications work great with it. Brian does > have a point in that it has to be "done correctly" and with the right > understanding of how to build a high performing virtualization > environment it will work just fine for domain controllers\global > catalog servers. > > > > Regards, > > Steven > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs > > I have no problem with VMWare or Virtual Server DCs if done > correctly. Frankly, 7K users is like pocket change if you ask me. > Really, the users generate no load – they logon to the PC and change > their password. Things like Exchange (and OLK), machines, and other AD > aware apps do. If properly written and the virtual hardware properly > configured everything should still jive. If I had to make a one off > guess with no more info I'd say go for it. The price war with MS and > EMC on virtualization has made this far more economical, and if you're > going to be doing branches, you can play your sacred card and > virtualize stuff and quasi isolate it. There have been a couple lengthy > discussions on that subject recently – Tony has a search widget on the > website for this DL. :) > > > > Thanks, > > Brian Desmond > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Molkentin, Steve > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:50 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs > > > > Ada , > > > > I am intrigued as to why "management" are directing you to > do this. What benefits do they percieve? Do they understand the nature > of the 2K3 directory and the load 7,000 users puts on it? > > > > This is not a criticism - just a curious thinking out loud > moment... > > > > Personally - I wouldn't do it. Some would say a DC is a > sacred thing, not to be toyed with. Proof of concept is always good in > these scenarios... if you were to set this up in a lab, even with just > two VMWare-ed DC's, you could show the overhead this would place on the > machine and help them to understand the additional cost this will > bring. > > > > Remember, a DC that is just a DC (AD, DNS, maybe DHCP) > doesn't need to be a gutsy box - it can just be a PC rebuilt with > Win2K3 server on it. However it does need to stay up all the time. ;) > > > > themolk. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Rivera, Ada > Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 9:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs > > We have a single domain forest with about 7,000 > users. Currently we 8 AD regional sites and one HQ AD site. The > regional sites each have a DC serving their local regional area and > there are multiple DCs in our HQ site. The environment is currently > running Windows 2000 SP4 and we are looking to upgrade our DCs to W2K3. > The direction from management is that we will put all of our domain > controllers on VM Ware when we upgrade the DCs to W2K3. Does anyone > have any thoughts on this? Good or Bad idea? >
