| Author | Messages | |
blucas
Posts:2
 | | 06/12/2006 8:27 AM |
| Re-post
Bryan Lucas
Server Administrator
Texas Christian University
(817) 257-6971
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lucas, Bryan
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:05
AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual
DCs
Along these lines, has anyone seen an
actual best practices whitepaper for MS Virtual Server? How to configure
disk arrays, controller cache, how many VHDs per volume, memory allocation,
etc.
Bryan Lucas
Server Administrator
Texas Christian University
(817) 257-6971
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Presley, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006
10:23 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual
DCs
This is absolutely true. I know
virtualization scares a lot of people, but the fact is that in some
environments virtualizing systems saves a great deal of money and actually
makes managing systems much easier (here it has reportedly saved a
"significant" amount in hardware cost for the enterprise). I
have been closely watching my Exchange servers ever since our AD side of the
house started virtualizing DC's and with domain controllers running on ESX
servers in an optimized configuration the performance is very close to hardware.
I have noticed that in terms of LDAP performance that VM's are a tad bit slower
then hardware, but that "tad" is well within the range of performance
that applications like Exchange require. After over a year of
having virtualized DC's we have not had any problems with
virtualized domain controllers (placed globally on ESX servers around the
world). We do, however, work on the side of caution and do maintain
a few hardware DC's in our HQ that own FSMO roles, but I've seen nothing
to suggest that they could not be on VM's to date (it's just a
precaution).
I have to admit at first I totally
dismissed virtualization because I considered it, like others, as more of a
development\test environment solution, however I have since been convinced
after working with virtualized OS's that it has it's place (we have 100's if
not 1000's of virtualized hosts currently in production). I/O intensive
applications are not a good place for virtualization in production, but other
less I/O intensive applications work great with it. Brian does have a
point in that it has to be "done correctly" and with the right
understanding of how to build a high performing virtualization environment it
will work just fine for domain controllers\global catalog servers.
Regards,
Steven
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006
12:04 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual
DCs
I have no problem with VMWare or Virtual Server DCs if done correctly.
Frankly, 7K users is like pocket change if you ask me. Really, the users
generate no load “ they logon to the PC and change their password. Things
like Exchange (and OLK), machines, and other AD aware apps do. If properly written
and the virtual hardware properly configured everything should still jive. If I
had to make a one off guess with no more info I™d say go for it. The
price war with MS and EMC on virtualization has made this far more economical,
and if you™re going to be doing branches, you can play your sacred card
and virtualize stuff and quasi isolate it. There have been a couple lengthy
discussions on that subject recently “ Tony has a search widget on the
website for this DL. :)
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Molkentin, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:50
AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Virtual
DCs
Ada,
I am intrigued as to why
"management" are directing you to do this. What benefits do they
percieve? Do they understand the nature of the 2K3 directory and the load 7,000
users puts on it?
This is not a criticism - just a curious
thinking out loud moment...
Personally - I wouldn't do it. Some would
say a DC is a sacred thing, not to be toyed with. Proof of concept is always
good in these scenarios... if you were to set this up in a lab, even with
just two VMWare-ed DC's, you could show the overhead this would place on the
machine and help them to understand the additional cost this will bring.
Remember, a DC that is just a DC (AD, DNS,
maybe DHCP) doesn't need to be a gutsy box - it can just be a PC rebuilt with
Win2K3 server on it. However it does need to stay up all the time. ;)
themolk.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rivera, Ada
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 9:51 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] Virtual DCs
We
have a single domain forest with about 7,000 users. Currently we 8
AD
regional sites and one HQ AD site. The regional sites each have a DC
serving
their local regional area and there are multiple DCs in our HQ site. The
environment
is currently running Windows 2000 SP4 and we are looking to
upgrade our DCs to W2K3. The direction from management is that we
will put all of our domain controllers on VM Ware when we upgrade
the DCs to W2K3. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Good or Bad
idea? | | | |
|
|