Just a suggestion, I have been reading great things about Windows Server 2012 and using it as a ISCSI host. You get can an inexpensive server put lots of storage in it and use it as a NAS/SAN on your network.
I am using it in a lab environment and it works great. Just a thought. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > 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* <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* <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 > > > > > >
