Business ESXi server?

[riahc3]

At one point in time, we are planning to replace a Xeon server that runs WS 2003 SBS with another server that runs WS 2012.

As a suggestion, I think it would be better to get a ESXi compatible server that would consolidate some of the other devices we have....

We have that WS (DHCP, AD, and DNS) and another QNAP NAS running RAID5. We also have a NVR for surveillance.

With ESXi, I would like to have:

1 VM for WS2012R2. Would do DHCP, AD, DNS, etc.
Another VM for FreeNAS that would replace our QNAP NAS. Problem is that I believe that FreeNAS doesn't support RAID5 BUT I imagine there are other solutions.
Im not sure how to replace the NVR.
Would you recommend replacing a physical router with something that runs something like pfSense as well?

Also, with ESXi, is it possible to have a client installed directly on the server instead of having to use a external PC with a external client (like vSphere Client) to view the VMs? I want to make this easy for a couple of other people to access the different virtual machines without installing any additional software on their PCs and without needing a PC.

Please ask any questions and thank you.

 

[XavierMace]

Why are you looking to replace the NAS? How many drives/storage do you have? What kind of budget do you have?

ESXI is a bit of a waste to just run 1 server + storage. I love VMWare but sometimes there's just no point to using it. Just run a single 2012 server with Storage Spaces and be done with it. I'm also not sure that I would run FreeNAS in a business environment.

In regards to the client question, no and based on the two things you've specified the server needing to do, who would need access to it and NOT have a PC?

 

[riahc3]

Why are you looking to replace the NAS? How many drives/storage do you have? What kind of budget do you have?

Well, mostly energy reasons. The NAS doesnt need to be replaced at all, at best updated. Its actually pretty new.

ESXI is a bit of a waste to just run 1 server + storage.

Well, my first thoughts were WS for typical Windows services and a NAS. But Im sure there are other usages for it. Also, it would be used as testing bed for other OSs and our software.

Just run a single 2012 server with Storage Spaces and be done with it.

I was thinking about making a transition from RAID5 to Storage Spaces. Ive read a lot about storage pools and Im intrested.

I'm also not sure that I would run FreeNAS in a business environment.

Thank you. I was wondering about this and your opinion was important.

In regards to the client question, no and based on the two things you've specified the server needing to do, who would need access to it and NOT have a PC?

My thought is more geared towards portable and SSF devices which only need a keyboard, mouse and display. Some sort of IPKVM implementation.

 

[DeviousTrap]

As far as an external client, you can make a small VM with a windows installation. Install vsphere in that VM, then RDP it to it from whatever device you want.

 

[ultimatebob]

At one point in time, we are planning to replace a Xeon server that runs WS 2003 SBS with another server that runs WS 2012.

As a suggestion, I think it would be better to get a ESXi compatible server that would consolidate some of the other devices we have....

We have that WS (DHCP, AD, and DNS) and another QNAP NAS running RAID5. We also have a NVR for surveillance.

With ESXi, I would like to have:

1 VM for WS2012R2. Would do DHCP, AD, DNS, etc.
Another VM for FreeNAS that would replace our QNAP NAS. Problem is that I believe that FreeNAS doesn't support RAID5 BUT I imagine there are other solutions.
Im not sure how to replace the NVR.
Would you recommend replacing a physical router with something that runs something like pfSense as well?

Also, with ESXi, is it possible to have a client installed directly on the server instead of having to use a external PC with a external client (like vSphere Client) to view the VMs? I want to make this easy for a couple of other people to access the different virtual machines without installing any additional software on their PCs and without needing a PC.

Please ask any questions and thank you.

Finally, a VMWare question I'm qualified to answer! There is nothing stopping you with installing the vSphere client on a VM, except that you're screwed if you want to make hardware changes to the host or VM that the software is running on since you often have to shut the VM down for that. To get around that, the IT guys where I work installed a small Windows VM on each Hypervisor with a copy of software so you can log onto the other server and admin it that way.

That said, vSphere client is small and isn't a big deal to install on any Windows workstation.

 

[riahc3]

The client was just a afterthought. More worried about the actual server.

 

[mfenn]

Problem is that I believe that FreeNAS doesn't support RAID5 BUT I imagine there are other solutions.

FreeNAS does support traditional RAID as well as ZFS. However, generally speaking you don't run VMs who are doing their on software RAID. Instead you push the RAID down to the hypervisor layer and the VM just handles the sharing side of things.

However, the way people typically set it up in a business environment is that you have a SAN or NAS which hosts your VM storage, and then the ESXi server runs diskless (booting from a USB or CompactFlash card). This is advantageous because the ESXi server becomes a somewhat disposable appliance which you can swap out at any time. And most places already have SANs and NASs in place.

Im not sure how to replace the NVR.

Depending on your cameras and existing surveillance infrastructure, you can install a Linux VM with a software NVR like ZoneMinder. Alternatively, your vendor might have a VMware appliance that can replace the dedicated box.

Would you recommend replacing a physical router with something that runs something like pfSense as well?

This can work, but keep in mind that you'll still need some switching infrastructure to get data to and from the ESXi server.

Also, with ESXi, is it possible to have a client installed directly on the server instead of having to use a external PC with a external client (like vSphere Client) to view the VMs? I want to make this easy for a couple of other people to access the different virtual machines without installing any additional software on their PCs and without needing a PC.

No, it is not possible to have a full client running directly in the ESXi console. You can however SSH into the ESXi server and administer VMs via the command line. You can install a VM with the ESXi client on it as people have suggested. Alternatively, if you are using full vSphere instead of just bare ESXi, you can use the vSphere web client where the web client is hosted on a server running in a VM. Then the actual end users only need a web browser.

 

[XavierMace]

We need a clearer picture of what you are trying to accomplish. What's the goals/priorities? Efficiency? Reliability? Spending money just because you have a budget for it?

RE: Replacing the NAS. Depending on model/config, the drives may be a good portion of it's power usage. Replacing it may not give you much of a power consumption change. It's highly unlikely it would be enough to justify the price of a new one.

RE: Reasons for ESXI. IF you are looking to setup a test environment with additional servers then yes, ESXI could make sense. But that's not something you originally specified. With that in mind, we need more info on what all you are going to be doing to advise how to scale the host. What kind of apps are you running, what kind of performance do you need?

RE: Portables and ThinClients. You're only option would be for them to RDP into a VM or Workstation with the client installed. You have to have the client installed on a workstation at some point otherwise you have no way of setting up a VM to install it on.

 

[saratoga172]

Finally, a VMWare question I'm qualified to answer! There is nothing stopping you with installing the vSphere client on a VM, except that you're screwed if you want to make hardware changes to the host or VM that the software is running on since you often have to shut the VM down for that. To get around that, the IT guys where I work installed a small Windows VM on each Hypervisor with a copy of software so you can log onto the other server and admin it that way.

That said, vSphere client is small and isn't a big deal to install on any Windows workstation.

We have a few VMware setups where I work. We have a couple older ones that have a dedicated vSphere server with the client installed for management. We also have some newer VDI systems that have the vSphere server contained on a VM on that system.

The nice thing is that you can always download and install the vSphere client for free on any machine, laptop, server, etc and use it to manage the hosts in the event you can't get to the VM. All you need is the DNS name or the IP of the host itself.

The consideration with that is that you won't be logging into the vSphere server and managing the environment, rather you would be managing the actual host which is much more limited.

 

[mvbighead]

For one VMWare Esxi box, a vSphere server ain't gonna happen... unless you just like to spend money.

Load ESXi, install the client for the users who need it, connect to the host and manage VMs. You don't want a dedicated VM to manage the host as when that goes down, you'll just need the client anyway. If you want that for external access, fine, but it shouldn't be your only way to manage the host.

 

[riahc3]

We need a clearer picture of what you are trying to accomplish. What's the goals/priorities? Efficiency? Reliability? Spending money just because you have a budget for it?

The main goal Im thinking is that I want to have one box that can run WS2012R2.......and other things. It would host DHCP, DNS, AD, etc.....but for about at max 20 users. Other than that it sits there doing nothing. I think using a virtual enviorment such as ESXi would really get more bang out of the hardware

RE: Replacing the NAS. Depending on model/config, the drives may be a good portion of it's power usage. Replacing it may not give you much of a power consumption change. It's highly unlikely it would be enough to justify the price of a new one.

Well, using a "virtualized" RAID5 would consume more or less than a physical RAID5 controller card?

RE: Reasons for ESXI. IF you are looking to setup a test environment with additional servers then yes, ESXI could make sense. But that's not something you originally specified.

Its secondary purpose would be a test environment for our software on different platforms: Linux, Windows, OS X, etc.

With that in mind, we need more info on what all you are going to be doing to advise how to scale the host. What kind of apps are you running, what kind of performance do you need?

The main goal would be WS2012R2 (DNS, DHCP, AD). In the backburner, mail server, hell, even maybe a web server. But this is in the backburner and hasn't been purposed.

RE: Portables and ThinClients. You're only option would be for them to RDP into a VM or Workstation with the client installed. You have to have the client installed on a workstation at some point otherwise you have no way of setting up a VM to install it on.

Wanted to see if there was a way around that but.....understandable.

We have a few VMware setups where I work. We have a couple older ones that have a dedicated vSphere server with the client installed for management. We also have some newer VDI systems that have the vSphere server contained on a VM on that system.

Yeah, a full vSphere server would be nice. Looked into it and its not THAT expensive.

For one VMWare Esxi box, a vSphere server ain't gonna happen... unless you just like to spend money.

Im looking at the price and its 5K. It isn't that expensive....

Load ESXi, install the client for the users who need it, connect to the host and manage VMs. You don't want a dedicated VM to manage the host as when that goes down, you'll just need the client anyway. If you want that for external access, fine, but it shouldn't be your only way to manage the host.

With vSphere (Im not sure if I read it here or somewhere else), is a HTML5 RDP browser session possible?

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

With vSphere (Im not sure if I read it here or somewhere else), is a HTML5 RDP browser session possible?

I think you need a plugin but yes you can actually just have a link to an HTML console for a VM IF you are running vCenter 5.1/5.5. It requires the vSphere Web Client for this feature.

 

[saratoga172]

I think you need a plugin but yes you can actually just have a link to an HTML console for a VM IF you are running vCenter 5.1/5.5. It requires the vSphere Web Client for this feature.

There is a web client for vSphere that can be used. I find Chrome works much better than IE when using it. A plug-in installs the first time you do a console session through the browser.

It works pretty well, but if you're used to the client it is no where close (imo) in terms of use, speed, etc.

There are some nice things about the web client, but there are also things that feel limited. The UI is also much more different and the location of everything is completely different. It was almost like learning a new product.

 

[saratoga172]

Yeah, a full vSphere server would be nice. Looked into it and its not THAT expensive.

It's not terrible since you can really spec down that box IF it is only used for that. We have a vSphere server that has 4gb of memory, 120gb of HD space and a quad core proc. Server never has any issues. It only manages 6 production machines and 5 test machines.

Hopefully that gives you some idea of what a vSphere server can run off of. The only change would be to shoot for 8gb of ram.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

There is a web client for vSphere that can be used. I find Chrome works much better than IE when using it. A plug-in installs the first time you do a console session through the browser.

It works pretty well, but if you're used to the client it is no where close (imo) in terms of use, speed, etc.

There are some nice things about the web client, but there are also things that feel limited. The UI is also much more different and the location of everything is completely different. It was almost like learning a new product.

The Web Client isn't all that bad, but the VIC is so much faster if you can use it. I've heard all the complaints about the Web Client from various people. Unfortunately our engineering team doesn't ask me for design decisions lol.

 

[mvbighead]

The main goal Im thinking is that I want to have one box that can run WS2012R2.......and other things. It would host DHCP, DNS, AD, etc.....but for about at max 20 users. Other than that it sits there doing nothing. I think using a virtual enviorment such as ESXi would really get more bang out of the hardware


Well, using a "virtualized" RAID5 would consume more or less than a physical RAID5 controller card?


Its secondary purpose would be a test environment for our software on different platforms: Linux, Windows, OS X, etc.


The main goal would be WS2012R2 (DNS, DHCP, AD). In the backburner, mail server, hell, even maybe a web server. But this is in the backburner and hasn't been purposed.






Wanted to see if there was a way around that but.....understandable.



Yeah, a full vSphere server would be nice. Looked into it and its not THAT expensive.



Im looking at the price and its 5K. It isn't that expensive....



With vSphere (Im not sure if I read it here or somewhere else), is a HTML5 RDP browser session possible?

Vsphere is a good thing to have if you're managing multiple hosts. If you're talking about one, it's not worth the cost or effort as your environment isn't complex.

Now, if you bought 3 hosts and one of the vSphere 'kits', then it makes some sense. But for one host, you're not easing management in the slightest. You do gain some things like cloning I suppose, so if that's what you're after.

Another thing to consider is HyperV. And whether you use ESXi or HyperV as the hypervisor if you buy a datacenter copy of Windows, you get an unlimited amount of VM licenses for that host.

For me, I just don't see vSphere being necessary for a single host. But you may differ.

 

[XavierMace]

Vsphere is a good thing to have if you're managing multiple hosts. If you're talking about one, it's not worth the cost or effort as your environment isn't complex.

Now, if you bought 3 hosts and one of the vSphere 'kits', then it makes some sense. But for one host, you're not easing management in the slightest. You do gain some things like cloning I suppose, so if that's what you're after.

Another thing to consider is HyperV. And whether you use ESXi or HyperV as the hypervisor if you buy a datacenter copy of Windows, you get an unlimited amount of VM licenses for that host.

For me, I just don't see vSphere being necessary for a single host. But you may differ.

You mean vCenter.

vSphere = Management App
vCenter = Centralized Server you connect to with vSphere

Server 2012R2 Datacenter costs about the same as 12 2012R2 Standard licenses. Given his usage scenario, that seems to be a bit of a waste.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

You mean vCenter.

vSphere = Management App
vCenter = Centralized Server you connect to with vSphere

Server 2012R2 Datacenter costs about the same as 12 2012R2 Standard licenses. Given his usage scenario, that seems to be a bit of a waste.

No.

vSphere = Suite of software products (ESXi, vCenter, Update Manager, SSO, etc.)

vSphere Client = Management application for connecting to and managing standalone ESXi servers or vCenter Server.

vCenter Server = Application that allows the management of multiple ESXi servers and introduces additional features such as vMotion, HA/DRS Clusters, etc.

 

[XavierMace]

No.

vSphere = Suite of software products (ESXi, vCenter, Update Manager, SSO, etc.)

vSphere Client = Management application for connecting to and managing standalone ESXi servers or vCenter Server.

vCenter Server = Application that allows the management of multiple ESXi servers and introduces additional features such as vMotion, HA/DRS Clusters, etc.

While that may be technically more accurate everyone I know in the industry knows when you say vSphere, you are referring to the client. Everyone one just says ESXI when referring to the hypervisor. vCenter is however a separate product from vSphere. If you disagree, you should tell that to vmWare's website.

More importantly if you look at the post I was quoting, you'll see the point I was making.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

While that may be technically more accurate everyone I know in the industry knows when you say vSphere, you are referring to the client. Everyone one just says ESXI when referring to the hypervisor. vCenter is however a separate product from vSphere. If you disagree, you should tell that to vmWare's website.

More importantly if you look at the post I was quoting, you'll see the point I was making.

I work for VMware. Everyone in the industry certainly doesn't do that Most people I deal with just say "client" or "web client". vCenter is not a separate product from vSphere. vSphere is a suite of products.

http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/features.html

 

[XavierMace]

I work for VMware. Everyone in the industry certainly doesn't do that Most people I deal with just say "client" or "web client". vCenter is not a separate product from vSphere. vSphere is a suite of products.

http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/features.html

You'll note I specified everyone I know in the industry. Also:

http://www.vmware.com/products/vcenter-server/

If it's not a separate product, why does it have a separate product page?

 

[mfenn]

Vsphere is a good thing to have if you're managing multiple hosts. If you're talking about one, it's not worth the cost or effort as your environment isn't complex.

Now, if you bought 3 hosts and one of the vSphere 'kits', then it makes some sense. But for one host, you're not easing management in the slightest. You do gain some things like cloning I suppose, so if that's what you're after.

Another thing to consider is HyperV. And whether you use ESXi or HyperV as the hypervisor if you buy a datacenter copy of Windows, you get an unlimited amount of VM licenses for that host.

For me, I just don't see vSphere being necessary for a single host. But you may differ.

I agree that with a single server vSphere is excessive. I mentioned it becasue it's the only way to get the web client, which is the official way to get agentless management of VMware hypervisors, which the OP was interested in.

 

[mfenn]

There is a web client for vSphere that can be used. I find Chrome works much better than IE when using it. A plug-in installs the first time you do a console session through the browser.

It works pretty well, but if you're used to the client it is no where close (imo) in terms of use, speed, etc.

There are some nice things about the web client, but there are also things that feel limited. The UI is also much more different and the location of everything is completely different. It was almost like learning a new product.

The classic .NET VI client is deprecated and can't physical operate any new features starting with 5.1, so my opinion is that you've gotta get used to it sooner or later, might as well be sooner. I think it's pretty reasonable in 5.5, and you actually need the plugin for fewer operations there. AFAIK in 5.5, you can get access to the console with just the basic Flash requirement.

We have a "screw you, no Windows anywhere" vSphere deployment, and it's pretty great for us. Not everybody runs in a Windows-less environment though, so that's kind of neither here nor there.

 

[XavierMace]

Only way I've gotten the Web Client on 5.5 and 6.0 Beta to reliably function on Linux (Ubuntu) was using Chrome.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

You'll note I specified everyone I know in the industry. Also:

http://www.vmware.com/products/vcenter-server/

If it's not a separate product, why does it have a separate product page?

It's part of the vSphere suite of products I should say. It isn't a product that is OUTSIDE of the vSphere suite. That would be a more accurate way of saying it.