Yes that is exactly why I was saying to get a new server, so that I will have to 2 hosts
so that in the event of a physical failure i can jump to the other. Now can someone suggest or recommend good iSCSI device? Jean-Paul Natola From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:49:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server To: [email protected] >>I'm not following the "single point of failure" With a single host machine containing X guests, any failure of the host machine would render all X guests inoperable until fixed. Best to have two host servers and split the guests between them. In the event of a hardware failure of one host, you could run the guests on the other. That's the config I now have for my home office... Frankly, with the arrangement you have listed, I would make sure to get (or end up with) two host servers that are similarly configured, and run the whole operation on them. For that size environment, SQL and Exchange will be fine in a virtualized capacity. I'd settle on a single hypervisor, though, for ease of management. iSCSI storage is not that expensive, and you can decide if you want the complexity of booting VMs off of it, or just using it for file/data storage. Lots of cost-effective vendors in this space to choose from. Then you'd be down to two physical boxes, plus external storage. ASB http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market… On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:18 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: I'm not following the "single point of failure" this is what the end result will be -except the file/nas issue 1 Esxi host running 2 guets a) guest one win2012 dc b) guest 2 citrix tx 2.windows 2012 dc physical (former DC/File/Print) 3. Windows 2012 hyper-V host a) Windows 2012 guest running exchange 2013 3. Windows 2008 physical member server running sql 2005 now the decision is , what to do for additional storage and NAS (reliable raid 10 o 50 , 60, etcc or a Windows server- I think i maybe misunderstanding you Jean-Paul Natola From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:06:39 +0000 You have a pretty small scale environment. I don’t see any reason why you can’t run additional guests *assuming* that you have sufficient physical resources to service the needs of the guests. I would also ask the business to prioritise the services that they require from IT, and the maximum acceptable downtime is (until either a workaround or restoration of service). Putting things onto a single host creates a single-point-of-failure (SPOF), and the business needs to understand the implications of losing all those services at once (i.e. in a worst case scenario, how long will it take to get everything running again or other mitigation in place) Cheers Ken From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P Sent: Thursday, 20 June 2013 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server on a seperate note, what is your personal opinion on hyper-V host running guest running Exchange, should the V-host not run any other guest other than Exchange? Current exchange: 2013; 60 users 50 GB Store 2 XEON quad and 24 GB ram on host Jean-Paul Natola From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:32:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server To: [email protected] What do you think will be the usage in 3-5 years? If that's what you're planning for, then you need to have some idea of what that is. Frankly, for that size environment, anything over 18-24 months is pure speculation, and you'll spend more wisely by planning for only 2 years rather than 5. Things change. Especially when you're talking a budget of $5K ASB http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market… On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:02 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: Already planned, VM 2003dc will become 2012 DC and current "all in one" 2003 dc will become 2012 DC (already have the Cals) that will give me 2 dedicated 2012 DC's Looking to stay under 5k, and I have no problems with Dell outlet r510 or r710 - just trying to decide NAS or Server, and of course I dont need to populate all the drive bays right away, heck there used to a 7200k sata1 mirror- Jean-Paul Natola From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:51:19 -0400 I really hate to do this but you will first want to start with a budget and then try to fit what fits into that budget. As an aside you might want to look at upgrading to at least 2008 R2 or better 2012, have at least 2 DC's, and get all the file/print off the DC when you go this route. Jon From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:43:30 -0400 Company background, 30 yrs old, started with 2 guys, went to to computers in the late 90's had about 20 users, 1 W2k server and a 120 gb SNAP- Fast forward , 2008, 30 users, sql 2005 DB (consultant at the time ) installs a new 1U 2003 80gb raid server for sql DB , and another 1U server with a mirrored 750gb drive , serving as DC/File/Print/DNS Server. Fast Forward 2013 - single site , single domain 1. ESXi hosting a VM 2008 Citrix TS, and a VM 2003 DC (no storage really available) 1. Windows 2012 Hyper-V host, SAS mirror for host OS, raid 10 2TB for guest OS', currently one guest, 2012 with Exchange 2013. Now there are 60 users, (still using original 2003 for File Print and DNS) and storage demands, as we all know are increasing exponentially, so I get the "we need more storage " so this begs the question, new server 2u (R710 maybe) , or a NAS 8 or 12 bays maybe- As an aside, majority of the users use basic office files, but there are about a dozen that deal with CAD Audio and Video I want this solution to be good for 3-5 years
