On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 18:47, Jeff Crosby <jlcrosby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We're currently a workgroup, not a domain. ÂMoving to a domain is part of all this.
That's a very good idea :)
What's the issue with virtualizing domain controller(s)?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888794
Basically: You can. It works.
But: No Snapshots. No Rollbacks. No Pause. Pay special attention to
time synchronization.
I'm very conservative when it comes to stuff like this, so my
recommendation to customer is to always keep at least one dedicated,
physical DC. But i know several environments that have only virtual
DCs. It's just very important that certain virtualization features
will _never_ be used, otherwise replication will easily kill your
entire AD environment.
Are you intending to run two additionals VMs as dedicated DCs? Or do
you want to run the Fileserver and Exchange as a DC? (Possible, but
not recommended).
ÂThere is no HA on the System i.
Virtualization with High Availability will only protect you against
hardware faults, not software faults. It also presents a failure point
on it's own. Virtualization is great, but it's not a panacea. Don't
throw it at every problem just because virtualization is currently
_the_ big thing.
If you do not have your i in a HA configuration, it makes little sense
to make everything else redundant. VMware or Hyper-V HA is not a
replacement for using clusters for extremely important services, as it
will not protect against software faults.
A SAN is harder to manage than multiple physical servers? ÂWhy is that?
A SAN will make your environment more complex, and will introduce
additional points of failure (unless you make the SAN redundant, which
is certainly possible - but now your environment is even more
complex).
Now, as a technical guy - having a SAN is cool. It offers several
advantages capabilities that you won't have with local storage.
But here's my philosophy and approach to a problem: Keep it as simple
as possible. The less complexity and parts an infrastructure has, the
less likely are you going to have problems, and the lower your cost
will be.
Plan for replacement - i wouldn't run a mission critical server for 6
years - instead, replace them after 2.5-3 years to stay current on
both hardware and software. More migrations also mean less lost
knowledge and less hardware failures, since the hardware doesn't get
that old. You won't have to do "emergency migrations" because the old
hardware kicked the bucket, you're out of warranty and out of spare
parts.
You can go and deploy two x3650 M2, dual CPUs, plenty of memory,
VMware Enterprise with all the fancy tools, a nice SAN and deploy 7
VMs on it. You need more knowledge to manage this, but you also have a
lot more flexibility and more segregation of roles. This can prove
adventageous. There are many caveeats with virtualization. I
frequently read about stories of virtualization gone wrong because
many people did not look at the special considerations for
virtualization (mcseboard.de, a german Microsoft oriented web forum i
frequent).
Or you can go and deploy one x3650 M2 single CPU, plenty of memory as
an SBS, one x3550 M2 for your LOB App, and one x3550 M2 as a TS. Less
licenses to pay, less operating systems to manage. You could also go
another way, and run one of the x3550 M2 as a VM host, and run the two
TS VMs on it. TS are IMO prime candidates for virtualization if not
used for critical reasons like published desktops with thinclients.
Using virtualization in your case is not wrong, it has several
advantages, but i still think it's overkill and not the most pragmatic
approach to solving the needs of your business.
Oh, and something else that many people in the Windows world often
forget: Virtualization virtualizes CPU power, of which there is
usually plenty. You still need the same number of disk arms and the
same amount of memory as if you were deploying on real hardware. (Rule
of thumb. Restrictions apply.)
What kind of SAN? I seriously doubt that, because IBM charges about
10kUS$ - 15kUS$ for their entry SANs. Without any disks.
Cybernetics miSAN-D8/T4 with a Dell PowerVault LTO-4 External TBU.
I don't know that product, and i can only heavily recommend against
using a noname SAN for a virtualization project - in fact, i would
recommend against them in every case. If you want a device that offers
both NAS and SAN capabilities, i can only recommend you to go with
NetApp. They're officially supported with VMware, many deployments use
them, so there's a lot of knowledge on the internet available.
Something which i find increasingly more important.
If you want something from the lower end, the DS3300 is another
possiblity. It's only a SAN though, so it doesn't offer NAS
capabilities like the Cybernetics product.
However: Both of them start at around 10k US$
midrange.com
