I have run a mixed physical/virtual environment at my last job. I don't recommend physical machines anymore it is so much easier to recover virtual machines. I work in the small to tiny business market though so that does make a difference. The last job had the pDCe as a physical but only because of the way Trusts had to be done and the effort it took to get one up and running. When you go through multiple firewalls over T1's it can get a bit messy getting the machines to even see each other. I was dreading the physical machine dying which would have killed all the trusts and required more than a week to get back up and running but I would have then had the excuse of killing off the last physical machine only there because it was there.
Jon On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Erik Goldoff <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd say no, *if* you already have an available host on standby from > somewhere, like a dev lab, and a backup of the DC virtual machine file ... > or even virtual machine file that can be quickly promoted to DC ( > presuming another DC to sync with at another site ? ) > > Erik Goldoff > > *IT Consultant* > > *Systems, Networks, & Security * > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* David Lum [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 10:35 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: To VM or not VM? > > I hit send to quick – yes, recovering a DC should be from backups, not > snapshots. If there’s hardware failure, since there’s only one VM host so > there’s no benefit. Building a new DC is probably as easy as restoring one > isn’t it? > > > > *From:* James Rankin [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 6:51 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: To VM or not VM? > > > > If it's a DC, aren't you supposed to recover them as if they were physical, > rather than using snapshots? I'd think a snapshot restore would risk a USN > problem, would it not? > > 2009/10/19 Jonathan Link <[email protected]> > > I think the ability to snapshot before an update applied is a killer > feature. In a remote office, I think it's even more crucial. > > > > -Jonathan > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:29 AM, David Lum <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have a remote office with 20 users and a six month old file/print > server. It also has a 166 year old 2003 DC (ok, not that old, but it’s a > Pentium III with 4GB on the C: drive. My fellow SE’s like to VM everything > these days - does it make sense to send out a physical server with one VM > on it, especially a DC? There are no foreseeable plans to put another server > out there… > > *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER > NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION > (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into > the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able > rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such > a question." > > http://raythestray.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
