RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
After reading this thread, I have to kick my 2 cents in. I use ESX and VS day in and day out, and I think I can give fair comparison. I use only ESX - none of the rest of the suite of related products (virtual center, vmotion, etc), so this should be a pretty good apples-to-apples comparison. First, I can't see how anyone can say installing ESX is difficult or complicated. You pick a time zone, configure your disks, and configure your network. Not exactly rocket science. Once you are up and running, you point your web browser at the box's IP address and download the management client. Building virtuals in ESX is about the same in ESX as it is in VS. ESX is clearly superior in capabilities: Virtuals can have 1 cpu in VS, 4 in ESX Virtuals can have 3.5GB of RAM in VS, 16GB in ESX ESX can present raw LUNs to virtuals - this lets you do physical-to-virtual clustering among other things ESX has VLAN capability in it's virtual switches. You can extend VLAN trunks into your ESX server via one NIC ESX virtual disk files can be grown. ESX knows how to "combine" identical memory pages to conserve memory. This is a big win if you run many small virtuals on one box. The strong points for VS is that it runs on any hardware that windows runs on, it supports iSCSI, and it is free. Both are solid and perform reasonably well (although the general consensus around here is that virtuals running under ESX seem "snappier" than VS). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Read all of this sort of. I have a fairly simple opinion: If you want to screw around, or do small scale virtualization, VS or VMWare server - whatever makes you happy, they're about the same in a datacenter. If you want to go do all that money saving stuff, large scale lets buy some gigantic servers on a SAN, drink the kool aid off the cover of eweek, etc - go buy an esx license or two. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:29 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server >>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position. >>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. Sincerely, _ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _ ) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you now realize that Today is th
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Who's Ben? Well, now you know :) Sorry about that. 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: Bernard, Aric Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 1:11 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Regarding http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 - agreed. I often forget that not all customers have a premier support agreement in place.and cannot necessary afford third-party support as my organization will provide. To be clear, I did not state that ESX was easier to deploy: "and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it." Certainly for a "smaller" organization or a home lab, VS2005 will be easier to implement based on the underlying host OS and the less restrictive hardware requirements. As for System Center VMM - it will be a good tool when it is complete but is currently lacking many features that should show up in the next beta. I think I have made it clear that my perspective is from that of the Enterprise customer (also known as large, global, etc.) and as such I have not run into a single instance of recycled hardware - although I should probably highlight my "bias" based on who my employer is. Regardless, I certainly agree with you that MSVS must be part of the conversation as to what VE should be used and is appropriate in many situations and customer environments. Finally, my point was not to support one over the other just to make a statement based on what I see in the "field". And FWIW I only run VS2005 in all of my test environments (outside of customers) although currently non-support for x64 guests is becoming a sticking point for me. Regads, Aric (who's Ben?) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:29 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server >>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational >>>experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based >>>on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position. >>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual >>>environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. Sincerely, _ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _ ) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you no
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Regarding http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 - agreed. I often forget that not all customers have a premier support agreement in place...and cannot necessary afford third-party support as my organization will provide. To be clear, I did not state that ESX was easier to deploy: "and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it." Certainly for a "smaller" organization or a home lab, VS2005 will be easier to implement based on the underlying host OS and the less restrictive hardware requirements. As for System Center VMM - it will be a good tool when it is complete but is currently lacking many features that should show up in the next beta. I think I have made it clear that my perspective is from that of the Enterprise customer (also known as large, global, etc.) and as such I have not run into a single instance of recycled hardware - although I should probably highlight my "bias" based on who my employer is. Regardless, I certainly agree with you that MSVS must be part of the conversation as to what VE should be used and is appropriate in many situations and customer environments. Finally, my point was not to support one over the other just to make a statement based on what I see in the "field". And FWIW I only run VS2005 in all of my test environments (outside of customers) although currently non-support for x64 guests is becoming a sticking point for me. Regads, Aric (who's Ben?) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:29 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server >>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational >>>experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based >>>on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position. >>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual >>>environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. 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: Bernard, Aric Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just V
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Read all of this sort of. I have a fairly simple opinion: If you want to screw around, or do small scale virtualization, VS or VMWare server - whatever makes you happy, they're about the same in a datacenter. If you want to go do all that money saving stuff, large scale lets buy some gigantic servers on a SAN, drink the kool aid off the cover of eweek, etc - go buy an esx license or two. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:29 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server >>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position. >>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. 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: Bernard, Aric Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005. In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others. That Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -Original Message- From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on ad
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational >>>experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based >>>on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position. >>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual >>>environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. 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: Bernard, Aric Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005. In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others. That Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -Original Message- From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Damn mobile device... That said, the new tools (i.e. System Center virtual Machine Manager) coming and next generation Microsoft Virtualization technologies, undoubtedly some catching up will occur. Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -Original Message- From: "Bernard, Aric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 5:41 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005. In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others. That Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -Original Message- From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> 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?
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005. In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others. That Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -Original Message- From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> 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 perc
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
I don't think that is a "Microsoft" position. Probably a personal preference and opinion of the "internal" people. Publicly, MS supports Exchange virtualization starting from E2K3 SP2, running on VS R2. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 1/19/2007 8:09 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Btw, internally Microsoft doesn't recommend Exchange virtually due to I/O issues ... It's possible to run DCs on Virtual Server but I have questions about possible issues that I've heard about doing this. Chuck
Re: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Btw, internally Microsoft doesn't recommend Exchange virtually due to I/O issues ... It's possible to run DCs on Virtual Server but I have questions about possible issues that I've heard about doing this. Chuck
Re: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
yes, we have no bananas - Original Message - From: Akomolafe, Deji To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:43 PM 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] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Exchange has about 2700 users on it, and yes I will have a GC in the hotsite. The majority of users are in the forest root. Exchange and the DC/GC's will be the only items in the hotsite. Also, the odds of all 8 domains being down at once are very small due to significant distance between sites. If Exchange fails over then all 2700 would be connecting there. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coleman, Hunter Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:25 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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Ben, you are correct: I was using W2k3. I did the full acceleration thing. Locally, the speed was ok after that. Over any sort of WAN or VPN connection, it was still unusable. The only reason I found this notable was because the MS VMRC performs really well in that scenario. Thanks. -- nme P.S. Deji, thanks for the note about the base Linux OS on ESX. _ From: WATSON, BEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:18 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Noah, I initially thought that as well in regards to the video emulation performance. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet that you were using virtualized Windows Server 2003 operating systems. The default setting in Windows Server 2003 is that your display hardware acceleration is turned off. If you set your hardware acceleration to full, then your video emulation performance issues will go away. Personally, I have used both Microsoft and VMWare products, and have found the video performance to be pretty much the same. ~Ben _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of 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, _ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _ ) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(
Re: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
That's a common misconception which VMware unfortunately aren't very good at dispelling. The adapted redhat linux system you see when booting ESX is the Service Console, merely the first virtual machine running. Being the service console, its got some hooks into the guts of the vmkernel but the vmkernel isnt the linux kernel with some added modules. Even though he's never come public with it, vmkernel is probably based from Dr Mendel Rosemblums (one of the founders) work at Stanford where he and some of his students developed an OS, a machine simulator and a virtual machine monitor. Even so, base your choice on the capabilities needed and cost. Both ESX and VS are quite stable. And as far as I know, the license considerations aren't limited to VS. It's quite common for people to buy a DataCenter license per cpu for machines running ESX. Regards, Anders On 1/19/07, Akomolafe, Deji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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 a
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Sorry to jump in ;) But after all, you could say that ESX is linux-based and be right... And also it's true that they run on bare metal, because the overhead is *quite* different than the one you get when you load up all of a general-purpose OS (no matter if it's Windows or Linux, although IMO Windows tends to place a bit more load on the computer just "to be ready to serve"). So I believe that the comparison would be more appropiate if you pitch VmWare Server and VS thatn ESX/VS (you know, it's the classic "appliance" vs "software service" face-off). I've done some light use of all of them ESX, VS, VmWare Server... and I'll agree that VS is *much* simpler to set-up than the vmware offerings, but also the possibilities are somewhat more limited... As for the "real life" use, I don't have the needs/hardware to really take any of these products to their limits... but I know of those who use them (in large datacenters for real business critical apps) and, at least to my knoweldge, what people are deploying is ESX. Just my 0,002 (and no, I don't own EMC nor MS stock, nor am I affiliated with them in any way... though I believe VMWARE would be a great place to work, and I am a longtime user of their products). Let's see what VirtualServer 2007 brings to the table :) Javier Jarava De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Akomolafe, Deji Enviado el: viernes, 19 de enero de 2007 2:14 Para: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Asunto: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server >>> 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 http://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 you
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Noah, I initially thought that as well in regards to the video emulation performance. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet that you were using virtualized Windows Server 2003 operating systems. The default setting in Windows Server 2003 is that your display hardware acceleration is turned off. If you set your hardware acceleration to full, then your video emulation performance issues will go away. Personally, I have used both Microsoft and VMWare products, and have found the video performance to be pretty much the same. ~Ben From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of 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
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>> 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 Infrastruc
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&#x
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] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. 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 use
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
I agree we use VMware ESX here, and the features and scalability basically leave Microsoft's Implementation in the dirt. If you want to do enterprise class service, HA with VM's ESX is a superior product. Yes it has stringent hard requirements ( Hey VMware/EMC tested the configs, its like a very tight HCL to be followed, makes for good engineering sense) Yes its pricey: But you get what you pay for, the features and benefits plus the cost savings and increased utilization of the hardware, is killer in the end. Sorry, but if I was going to do a test enviornment, sure MS virtual Server works fine, but for Production, putting the Farm on ESX, period. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I,M.E,CCA,Network+, Security + email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cell:401-639-3505 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coleman, Hunter Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:22 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] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. Sincerely, _ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _ ) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com http://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 http://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 V
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] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. Sincerely, _ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _ ) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com http://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 http://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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. 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]
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 http://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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Side note to VMing. I think your fine going through a static VPN (More V acronyms!!) but be sure to close off ports: 5700, 5800 and 5900 on your outside firewall interface as there are a number of different worms looking for access to machines through those ports. Not nearly as bad as say "Big Yellow" but more than enough to waste a good deal of analysis ink every day. Brent Eads Employee Technology Solutions, Inc. Office: (312) 762-9224 Fax: (312) 762-9275 The contents contain privileged and/or confidential information intended for the named recipient of this email. ETSI (Employee Technology Solutions, Inc.) does not warrant that the contents of any electronically transmitted information will remain confidential. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the email in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. Viruses, Malware, Phishing and other known and unknown electronic threats: It is the recipient/client's duties to perform virus scans and otherwise test the information provided before loading onto any computer system. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or any other defect. Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's responsibility. Liability will be limited to resupplying the material. "Akomolafe, Deji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/2007 02:21 PM Please respond to ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org To cc 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] Message scanned by TrendMicro Message scanned by TrendMicro
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]
