| Author | Messages | |
aricbernard
Posts:4
 | | 01/20/2007 8:45 AM |
| Damn mobile device...
That said, the new tools (i.e. System Center virtual Machine Manager) coming and next generation Microsoft Virtualization technologies, undoubtedly some catching up will occur.
Sent from my Windows Mobile device.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bernard, Aric"
To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org"
Sent: 1/20/07 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...
MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.
MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.
In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.
That
Sent from my Windows Mobile device.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Brett Shirley"
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 | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:977
| | 01/21/2007 1:00 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
Read all of this sort of. I have a fairly simple opinion:
If you want to screw around, or do small scale virtualization,
VS or VMWare server – whatever makes you happy, they’re about the same in a
datacenter.
If you want to go do all that money saving stuff, large scale
lets buy some gigantic servers on a SAN, drink the kool aid off the cover of
eweek, etc – go buy an esx license or two.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:29 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to
insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone
just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others
Not
at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS
are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a
role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on
the original (apples and oranges)statement to which I responded. I have
not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply
stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that
dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable
position.
>>>However,
MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment
provider.
This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
You
will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we
are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but
at what cost? Idisagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy
and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the
availability of System Center. Whenyou need to provision a lab of,
say, 20 servers running various OSes, andyou areunder the gun to
get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is
not your friend.
I
was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs
Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that,
if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit.
Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that
by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair
shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX
may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the
case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it
adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _
// _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/
/)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com- we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Bernard, Aric
Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.ThatSent from my Windows Mobile device.-----Original Message-----From: "Brett Shirley" To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PMSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual ServerDoes anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windowsdebugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)?ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which isa 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 tosupport, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out thatset 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
| aricbernard
Posts:4
| | 01/21/2007 4:11 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
Regarding
http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
- agreed. I often forget that not all customers have a premier support
agreement in place…and cannot necessary afford third-party support as my
organization will provide.
To
be clear, I did not state that ESX was easier to deploy: “and from
an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide
range of tools available for it.” Certainly for a “smaller”
organization or a home lab, VS2005 will be easier to implement based on the
underlying host OS and the less restrictive hardware requirements. As for
System Center VMM – it will be a good tool when it is complete but is
currently lacking many features that should show up in the next beta. I
think I have made it clear that my perspective is from that of the Enterprise
customer (also known as large, global, etc.) and as such I have not run into a
single instance of recycled hardware – although I should probably
highlight my “bias” based on who my employer is. Regardless,
I certainly agree with you that MSVS must be part of the conversation as
to what VE should be used and is appropriate in many situations and customer
environments.
Finally,
my point was not to support one over the other just to make a statement based
on what I see in the “field”. And FWIW I only run VS2005 in
all of my test environments (outside of customers) although currently
non-support for x64 guests is becoming a sticking point for me.
Regads,
Aric
(who’s Ben?)
From:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On
Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to
insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone
just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others
Not
at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS
are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a
role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on
the original (apples and oranges)statement to which I responded. I have
not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply
stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that
dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable
position.
>>>However,
MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment
provider.
This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
You
will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we
are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but
at what cost? Idisagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy
and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the
availability of System Center. Whenyou need to provision a lab of,
say, 20 servers running various OSes, andyou areunder the gun to
get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is
not your friend.
I
was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs
Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is
that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one
bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide
that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair
shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX
may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the
case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it
adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _
// _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/
/)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com- we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Bernard, Aric
Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.ThatSent from my Windows Mobile device.-----Original Message-----From: "Brett Shirley" To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PMSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual ServerDoes anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windowsdebugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)?ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which isa 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 tosupport, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out thatset 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/21/2007 4:25 AM |
| v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
Who's Ben? Well, now you know :)
Sorry about that.
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: Bernard, AricSent: Sun 1/21/2007 1:11 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Regarding http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 - agreed. I often forget that not all customers have a premier support agreement in place…and cannot necessary afford third-party support as my organization will provide.
To be clear, I did not state that ESX was easier to deploy: “and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it.” Certainly for a “smaller” organization or a home lab, VS2005 will be easier to implement based on the underlying host OS and the less restrictive hardware requirements. As for System Center VMM – it will be a good tool when it is complete but is currently lacking many features that should show up in the next beta. I think I have made it clear that my perspective is from that of the Enterprise customer (also known as large, global, etc.) and as such I have not run into a single instance of recycled hardware – although I should probably highlight my “bias” based on who my employer is. Regardless, I certainly agree with you that MSVS must be part of the conversation as to what VE should be used and is appropriate in many situations and customer environments.
Finally, my point was not to support one over the other just to make a statement based on what I see in the “field”. And FWIW I only run VS2005 in all of my test environments (outside of customers) although currently non-support for x64 guests is becoming a sticking point for me.
Regads,
Aric (who’s Ben?)
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:29 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others
Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges)statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position.
>>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? Idisagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. Whenyou need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, andyou areunder the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend.
I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back.
Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory 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: Bernard, AricSent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.ThatSent from my Windows Mobile device.-----Original Message-----From: "Brett Shirley" To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PMSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual ServerDoes anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windowsdebugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)?ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which isa 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 tosupport, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out thatset 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
| deji
Posts:262
| | 01/21/2007 12:28 PM |
| >>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others
Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges)statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position.
>>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? Idisagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. Whenyou need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, andyou areunder the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend.
I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back.
Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory 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: Bernard, AricSent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...
MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.
MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.
In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.
That
Sent from my Windows Mobile device.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Brett Shirley"
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 | | | |
| AD00000333
Posts:0
| | 01/22/2007 1:18 AM |
| v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Consolas;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Trebuchet MS;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: #002060; FONT-FAMILY: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
After reading this thread, I have to kick my 2 cents in. I
use ESX and VS day in and day out, and I think I can give fair
comparison.I use only ESX - none of the rest of the suite of related
products (virtual center, vmotion, etc), so this should be a pretty good
apples-to-apples comparison.
First, I can't
see how anyone can say installing ESX is difficult or complicated. You pick a
time zone, configure your disks, and configure your network. Not exactly rocket
science. Once you are up and running, you point your web browser at
the box's IP address and download the management
client.
Building virtualsin ESX is about the same in ESX as
it is in VS.
ESX is clearlysuperior in
capabilities:
Virtuals can have 1 cpu in VS, 4 in ESX
Virtuals can have 3.5GB of RAM in VS, 16GB in
ESX
ESX can present raw LUNs to virtuals - this letsyou
do physical-to-virtual clustering among other things
ESX has VLAN capability in it's virtual switches. You can
extend VLAN trunks into your ESX server via one NIC
ESX virtual disk files can be grown.
ESX knows how to "combine" identical memory pages to
conserve memory. This is a big win if you run many small virtuals on one
box.
The strong points for VS is that it runs on any hardware
that windows runs on, it supports iSCSI, and it is free.
Both are solid and perform reasonably well (although the
general consensus around here is that virtuals running under ESX seem "snappier"
than VS).
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brian
DesmondSent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:01 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on
Virtual Server
Read
all of this sort of. I have a fairly simple opinion:
If
you want to screw around, or do small scale virtualization, VS or VMWare server
– whatever makes you happy, they’re about the same in a
datacenter.
If
you want to go do all that money saving stuff, large scale lets buy some
gigantic servers on a SAN, drink the kool aid off the cover of eweek, etc – go
buy an esx license or two.
Thanks,
Brian
Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c
- 312.731.3132
From:
ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org]
On Behalf Of Akomolafe, DejiSent: Sunday, January 21, 2007
12:29 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
>>>All
indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational
experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on
my personal experience and interactions with others
Not at all, Ben. I
can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned,
although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike
of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples
and oranges)statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that
VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the
perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a
non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable
position.
>>>However,
MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment
provider.This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615
You will also notice
that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS
2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost?
Idisagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than
VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System
Center. Whenyou need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running
various OSes, andyou areunder the gun to get it done, like 4 hours
ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your
friend.
I was afraid that
this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize
for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a
Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay,
the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are
looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with
the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS
was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just
be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your
bank and back.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / |
/)
/) /) /---| (/_
______ ___// _ // _ )
/ |_/(__(_) //
(_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_(_/
/)
(/ Microsoft
MVP - Directory 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: Bernard,
AricSent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on
Virtual Server
Other points to clear up...MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider.MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005.In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others.ThatSent from my Windows Mobile device.-----Original Message-----From: "Brett Shirley" To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PMSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual ServerDoes anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windowsdebugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)?ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which isa 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 tosupport, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out thatset 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.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspxList FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspxList archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx | | | |
|
|