>>> one runs on bare metal and other runs under a host OS
Actually, that's a sleight of hand. ESX runs on a VMware-cooked Linux
Kernel. So, one can argue that, because it is bundled with its own "OS", ESX
does not really "run on bare metal" in the way some people describe it.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
*-5.75, -3.23*
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
------------------------------
*From:* Noah Eiger
*Sent:* Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
I realize this is now getting a bit OT, but…
Deji, I think the fruit distinction is based on the fact that one runs on
bare metal and other runs under a host OS. (Or at least that is how I have
always thought of them.) Beyond that, I agree there are simply feature
comparisons.
That said, (and with the caveat that I have not worked with ESX) I find
the MS product to be much simpler than VM Server (nee GSX). I started
halfway down the path of migrating my MS VMs to VM Server and found it
overly complex and the video emulation performance using the VM Ware client
was so bad as to be unacceptable.
And as to the OP, I have DCs running on MS VS2k5 R2 and have not had any
problems. In the situation you describe, Justin, it seems like performance
and cost would be the deciding factor.
--- nme
------------------------------
*From:* Akomolafe, Deji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:44 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
:)
Interesting points, again. Did I remember to say that I am biased? I think
so. I expect that I'm going to catch some flaks for what I'm about to write,
but .....
These do not make VS and ESX "apples and oranges". VMotion, Host
clustering. Different nomenclature, different capabilities, same purpose,
Resource allocation guarantee, CPU Resource allocation weight.
Superior Networking capabilities. Sure. Does VS have networking
capabilities? Of course. Does ESX integrate with AD as well as VS? Does it
run on Windows? Support software iSCSI? Live backup and Shadow Copy? (OK, if
you count VCB and its proxy).
Administration - show of hands, quick - ESX or VS, which is easier and
less complex to deploy and administer? Which has easier and faster client
deployment option?
I swear, I have NOT drunk any kool-aid, but I think people's perceptions
of the superiority of ESX over VS is largely driven by a combination of
historical trends, myths, marketing and the unavoidable "Winblows Sux"
mentality. Since we are on a Windows-centric list here, I do not mind
admitting that I do not subscribe to the notion that if it's not Windows, it
must be better than Windows. Mind you, Hunter, I am NOT implying that this
is where you are coming from, but the reason I asked you to enunciate the
reasoning behind your thinking was because I was hoping to hear something I
haven't heard before on this issue.
VS certainly wasn't as feature-rich as ESX a couple of revs back. The gap
is considerably narrowed with what's currently going into VS and what ESX
3.0.1 has today. Will VS catch and surpass ESX in a few months, no. Will
it ever catch up, maybe. But, today, if we factor in the cost overlay (in
licensing, hardware and administrative values), and discount our
preconceived (or received) notions of ESX superiority, and give VS (as of
SP1 Beta 2) a fair shake, one would be pleasantly surprised at how narrow
the gap really is.
To me, these 2 products are all bananas - one is a "just banana" and the
other is "organic banana". They are certainly not more "apple and orange"
than your convertible and my jalopy are "apple and orange". They are both
virtualization tools, and they each serve the same purpose. One is cheap
(like, FREE cheap, while giving you liberal Windows licensing terms and
flexibility to boot), the other is not.
Now, I'm off to find my Teflon :)
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
*-5.75, -3.23*
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
------------------------------
*From:* Coleman, Hunter
*Sent:* Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
On the Virtual Infrastructure side: Moving running guests across hosts
(vmotion), the network configuration options, lower host overhead, grouping
hosts into resource pools and allowing guests to automatically migrate based
on allocation guarantees, 4-way SMP guests, 64-bit guests :->
Nothing wrong with Virtual Server, but I see it more on par with VMware
Server than ESX/Virtual Infrastructure.
------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Akomolafe, Deji
*Sent:* Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Interesting points, Hunter.
Not to engage in a holy war or something, but would you mind mentioning
what makes one of these Orange and the other Apple (the fruit)? No, don't
mention 64-bit Guest, thank you very much :)[1]
[1]<Grumbling> I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. </grumbling>
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
*-5.75, -3.23*
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
------------------------------
*From:* Coleman, Hunter
*Sent:* Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
IMHO, ESX/VM Infrastructure and Virtual Server are like apples and
oranges. Yes, they are both virtualization environments, but have vastly
different capabilities. VM Infrastructure has a much broader and deeper
feature set that does come with added cost and complexity.
Regardless, in the context of the original question I'd be concerned about
the load Exchange is going to place on the host hardware. How many Exchange
users are in the 8 domains, and how many of these would potentially be
connecting to the alternate site? Are you going to have GC availability to
support Exchange? What other resources at the hotsite might be looking for
DC/GC services?
I would also be careful about having a configuration at my hotsite that is
significantly different from my normal production environment. When things
have melted down to the point of failing over to the hotsite, it's not a
good time to be pulling out the manuals for your infrastructure because you
don't work with it day in and day out.
------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Akomolafe, Deji
*Sent:* Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
ESX (VMWare) is good - and pricey. And very strict as to hardware specs.
And complex to setup and administer. And, I could be wrong on this, NOT
(MS)-supported for virtualizing DCs.
Virtual Server, on the other hand, is good, not pricey, less picky, more
supported (I believe it's actually validated) for DCs virtualization. Plus,
the liberal OS licensing scheme is very attractive to me.
Yes, I know, VMWare rules the market. Yes, I am biased.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
*-5.75, -3.23*
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
------------------------------
*From:* Salandra, Justin A.
*Sent:* Thu 1/18/2007 11:57 AM
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
What would you recommend for the following situation.
We are thinking of having a hot site where Exchange will be replicated to
a remote location. Since Exchange will be remote over the Internet, we will
need to have DC's for each domain available in that remote site. (This
would all be going across a VPN)
I was thinking about placing 8 DC's on a VMWare Infrastructure 3 server
Enterprise edition. These DC's would really only be used in the event of a
disaster and people started connecting to Exchange up in the remote site.
Is VMWare Infrastructure 3 good? What would you use?
Justin A. Salandra
MCSE Windows 2000 & 2003
Network and Technology Services Manager
Catholic Healthcare System
646.505.3681 - office
917.455.0110 - cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
