| Author | Messages | |
jasalandra@xxxx.yyy
 | | 01/18/2007 2:57 AM |
| st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/18/2007 3:21 AM |
| 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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| beads
Posts:32
| | 01/18/2007 4:19 AM |
| 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"
Sent by: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org
Message scanned by TrendMicro
Message scanned by TrendMicro | | | |
| hcoleman
Posts:129
| | 01/18/2007 4:24 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know
IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
[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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/18/2007 4:40 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| hcoleman
Posts:129
| | 01/18/2007 5:21 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
:)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /) /---| (/_
______ ___// _ // _ )
/ |_/(__(_) //
(_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/
/)
(/ Microsoft MVP - Directory
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you
were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu
1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know
IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
[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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| EZiots
Posts:0
| | 01/18/2007 5:43 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
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:eziots@lifespan.org cell:401-639-3505
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Coleman,
HunterSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
:)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /) /---| (/_
______ ___// _ // _ )
/ |_/(__(_) //
(_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/
/)
(/ Microsoft MVP - Directory
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you
were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu
1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know
IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
[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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/18/2007 6:43 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
:)
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, ifwe 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 ischeap (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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| neiger@xxxx.yyy
| | 01/18/2007 7:53 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
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:deji@readymaids.com]
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, ifwe
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 ischeap
(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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ]
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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/18/2007 8:13 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>>>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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Noah EigerSent: Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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:deji@readymaids.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:44 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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, ifwe 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 ischeap (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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| AD000001799
Posts:0
| | 01/18/2007 8:17 AM |
| 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org 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:deji@readymaids.com]
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| jjarava
Posts:0
| | 01/19/2007 5:38 AM |
| 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 - 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:deji@readymaids.com]
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 01/19/2007 6:09 AM |
| 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 | | | |
| chankster
Posts:16
| | 01/19/2007 8:11 AM |
| 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 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, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: Noah EigerSent: Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
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:deji@readymaids.com] 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, ifwe 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 ischeap (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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT
-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From:
Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front already.
Sincerely,
_____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT
-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From:
Coleman, HunterSent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
Akomolafe, DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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, -3.23Do 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 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| jasalandra@xxxx.yyy
| | 01/19/2007 10:10 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| albertduro
Posts:0
| | 01/19/2007 10:27 AM |
| @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
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,
ifwe 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 ischeap (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
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you
were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu
1/18/2007 2:21 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
:)Ώ]
Ώ] I wish MS will hurry up on this front
already.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /) /---|
(/_ ______ ___// _ // _ )
/ |_/(__(_) //
(_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/
/)
(/ Microsoft MVP - Directory
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you
were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Coleman, HunterSent: Thu
1/18/2007 1:24 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe,
DejiSent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know
IT-5.75, -3.23Do 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 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| neiger@xxxx.yyy
| | 01/19/2007 11:57 AM |
| 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:ben_watson@appsig.com]
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org 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:deji@readymaids.com]
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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
Ώ] 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
jasalandra@chcsnet.org | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/20/2007 1:06 AM |
| 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 Serviceswww.akomolafe.com- we know IT-5.75, -3.23Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
From: ChuckGaff@aol.comSent: Fri 1/19/2007 8:09 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 | | | |
| activedirsmaporg
Posts:0
| | 01/20/2007 6:26 AM |
| 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:deji@readymaids.com]
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
>
>
> Ώ] 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
> jasalandra@chcsnet.org
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
| aricbernard
Posts:4
| | 01/20/2007 8:41 AM |
| 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"
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:deji@readymaids.com]
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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 :)Ώ]
>
>
> Ώ] 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: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] 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
> jasalandra@chcsnet.org
>
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
|
|