VMWare on server 2003

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Hi all, I have at last built my spare PC,
Specs-:
CPU-AMD 3700
HDD-160G
GFX-ATI X700 PRO
RAM-3Gig
Mobo-nForce4-a939.

On this comp I would like to install Server2003, but my main question is can I install VMWare on the server and put all the clients through VMware? With 3gig mem I can keep 1 gig for the server and have 4 clients with 500MB each, or should I just install XP Pro as the main OS and have the server and clients all on VMWare?
Thanks in advance
BTW im doing the 70-270 at mo and then the 70-290

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

3GB ram will only hold 2 VM running server 2k3, so you would need at least 2 more sticks if you would want to run 4 virtual machines. Google.com and search for VM-Ware Server !!

 

I would install XP on the host. Another thing is you could run your VM's with less allocated RAM. I always run XP hosts with 120 mb of RAM and Servers with 150-200mb. You only testing and in certain setups you going to have 2 or 3 servers running and a host so you will need to cut down the allocated Ram to each VM.

 

Thanks for the advice Zimbo, I will do that.

 

Really? What do you base that assumption on? Considering I currently have a machine with 4Gb of RAM in it running NINE 2K3 servers plus the host? Its perfectly possible to run 2K3 server with 256Mb of RAM - in a test environmenmt this is doubly true. I wouldn't recommend it in a production environment, but since this is a certification forum I guess the poster is likely to be using VMWare for his test l;ab - in which case 3Gb is perfectly adequate for at least six virtual servers. If anything his CPU is likely to be the bottleneck rather than RAM

 

All I want to run at the mo is 1 server and poss up to 4 clients running XP Pro just so I can try to do the things that are in the book like remote installs and the wsus updates.

 

I agree that you don't need to have Windows Server 2003 as your host machine. Use XP and try to keep the actual host out of any exercises or labs you intend to perform. That way, you lab setup will consist of all virtual machines and your design will be cleaner and more straightforward.

 

the downside of using XP as the host, is that you will need to purchase VMWare workstation. Install Server 2k3 as the host, and you can get VMWare server for free.

You can still follow the advice here of using the host server OS as a 'live' server (using it for your data, etc), and only use the clients for your test lab.

 

Hi all, just a quick 2 pennies worth.

My system is a 3800+ 64 x2 with 2Gb ram and it runs xp home/vista ultimate as the host and virtual pc with 2 2k3 servers and xp pro as the guest. I've allocated 512MB to each server and 192 to xp pro. they all work very happily together and very rarely do I get any issues with system performances. so allocating less ram to the servers and increasing the client count shouldnt really pose any issue for his system as far as I can see.

Also at work we have started benchmarking servers to see which ones we can virtualise, with the initial idea being to vmware ent them but now we are also learning towards citrix xen as a viable alternative as well.

 

Virtualising Servers in a production environment can be beneficial, particularly for smaller businesses. Most servers dont use their full capacity normally anyway, so if you can combine multiple servers into one, then it saves on cost.

However, you have to remember that you are essentially dumping 2+ servers onto a single piece of hardware. If the host fails, kiss goodbye to half your network. In this regard, you need to consider very carefully which servers you integrate. You need to consider not only the capacity usage of the server in question, but its impact on the business should it fail. High impact servers (such as those hosting business critial applications) should not be virtualised (although that doesnt mean they couldnt host a few low-impact servers), and you absolutley should never virtualise multiple high-impact servers onto the same host. Never!

Course, the beancounters often override this, but its worth bearing in mind and pointing out.

 

Fergal

That is certainly true for 'low level' virtualisation (i.e. using VMWare Server). It is 100% not accurate for a true enterprise-class virtualisation solution like ESX. ESX runs in most datacentres nowadays - the HA features inherent in a properly configured ESX infrastructure pretty much guarantee as close to five 9s of uptime as you're likely to get. ESX, VMotion, a SAN backend and redundancy of power in properly set up SAN enclosures are a world away from a few servers virtualised on a host running VMWare on its own OS!

 

Fair point Zeb. But Im guessing that setup is pricey, yes? There are going to be companies out there (specifically smaller companies), who would be looking at consolidating their existing servers into an already live host, in which case my point stands.

 

Oh you have NO idea! 'Pricey' doesn't even begin to describe it. Try 'extortionate' and you'd be halfway there. However, the initial setup costs are outweighed by the ROI - it basically pays for itself after about six months, anything after that is gravy.

Yes - I'd certainly agree that, for a small organisation virtualisation is still a long way off being a viable, stable option. This isn't true for medium-sized companies though - especially if they are on the cusp of a technical refresh or hardware replacement cycle. For my money it makes no sense to buy a load of tin now that will need replacing again in three years' time. Invest in a SAN and small scale ESX deployment that can grow over time and organisations will reduce their replacement, power and square footage costs by an enormous amount. Couple that with a modular approach to SAN implementation - with the ability to bolt new shelves in as storage is required/other servers are virtualised - and the benefits of virtualising for medium-sized companies are clear.

The company I have just started working for has migrated thirty servers - including almost all our production systems - onto just THREE physical ESX hosts, with a decent sized SAN serving storage and a reasonably well-speced switch for iSCSI connectivity. This has enabled us to cut data centre space down from around ten racks to just two (with some other racks for comms and servers that have yet to be, or are not likely to be virtualised). In addition, we have breathing space of at least three years on current predictions both for VM capacity and storage and, when the time is right, adding a new ESX host or extra shelf to the SAN should (in theory!) take about a day, with no downtime. If forecasts are correct, this has saved us somewhere in the order of £800k over the next three years.

You're definitely right about the smaller organisations though. Whilst it may be acceptable to have non-mission critical servers virtualised onto one host its certainly not plausible to do it to high-production or high-risk 'mission critical' systems.

 

It will hold more than that.

 

I have a Quad Core 2.4Ghz processor with 4GB of Ram and I'd be happy to run upto 14 Server VMs in a lab environment.

Remember whilst you wouldn't normally stick to the Microsoft minimum and reccommended specs in a production environment they are workable in a lab setup.