Virtual PC/Server....would you run a file server using it?

[Chadder007]

Playing with Virtual PC/Server has been tempting me to use Windows 2003 server virtualized as a small file server. It has worked very well so far after figuring out some issues with it. Its tempting because you have just that one file to slip over to another PC that you can open and run the Virtual Server instead of having to rebuild/restore a whole server/computer.

 

[TonyRic]

No, I do not consider Microsofts Virtual PC/Server to be enterprise ready. My job is to evaluate, test and implement virutal technologies. We have tested VPC/VS, Xen, Vituozzo and all of VMware's technologies. Xen is not *yet* ready for prime time, it is not yet stable enough, not can it *yet* run Windows unmodified and it is not usable on laptops where you NEED wireless connectivity. VPC/VS requires the additional expense and stability issues with its Windows Server underpinnings. This same argument holds true for VMWare Workstation and Server running on Windows. In this situation with regards to your question specifically, VMware Server/GSX running on Linux for performance and stability or VMWare ESX Server are the only platforms I would run on. For standard "I want to use this on my desktop/workstation to test other OS'", VPC/VS, VMware Workstation/GSX/Server on Windows is fine. Virtuozzo is a virtualization product that is great for server virtualization where all of the "Systems" are identical except for content.

 

[Rilex]

For a "small" file server, sure why not? How many GB data/users concurrently accessing it/average file size?

What underlying hardware do you have to support the VM? Are you going to be running multiple concurrent VMs on the said hardware?

 

[MysticLlama]

I don't see why not, and even more so if you have the actual data on some sort of disk array and are just using the VS to access/share it out.

I use Virtual Server in a production environment to run four instances of a webserver on a single peice of hardware. (Only way to get around a driver limitation on connections) It works fine and I haven't had any trouble. FWIW, I don't run *anything* but Virtual Server itself on the host machine, not other services to complicate matters.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy with it if I had to have the single file with GB after GB after GB of data in it, that sort of layout would make me a little nervous because if something happened to the image, you don't have the same repair and restore process that you can go through on a physical machine.

Worth playing with for a while though and testing out.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: MysticLlama
I don't see why not, and even more so if you have the actual data on some sort of disk array and are just using the VS to access/share it out.

I use Virtual Server in a production environment to run four instances of a webserver on a single peice of hardware. (Only way to get around a driver limitation on connections) It works fine and I haven't had any trouble. FWIW, I don't run *anything* but Virtual Server itself on the host machine, not other services to complicate matters.

I'm not sure I'd be real happy with it if I had to have the single file with GB after GB after GB of data in it, that sort of layout would make me a little nervous because if something happened to the image, you don't have the same repair and restore process that you can go through on a physical machine.

Worth playing with for a while though and testing out.

FWIW, you can setup VMDK files in VMWare to "stripe" across smaller 2 GB files. This makes backing up a VMWare image much simpler.

 

[TonyRic]

Mr. Chad, actually the 2GB files are concatenated, not striped. Otherwise you are correct.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Rilex
For a "small" file server, sure why not? How many GB data/users concurrently accessing it/average file size?

What underlying hardware do you have to support the VM? Are you going to be running multiple concurrent VMs on the said hardware?

1 gig of data.....probably 10 users.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: TonyRic
Mr. Chad, actually the 2GB files are concatenated, not striped. Otherwise you are correct.

Thanks, I didn't realize that. :thumbsup:

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Rilex
For a "small" file server, sure why not? How many GB data/users concurrently accessing it/average file size?

What underlying hardware do you have to support the VM? Are you going to be running multiple concurrent VMs on the said hardware?

1 gig of data.....probably 10 users.

....im guessing this is fine? dunno:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Rilex
For a "small" file server, sure why not? How many GB data/users concurrently accessing it/average file size?

What underlying hardware do you have to support the VM? Are you going to be running multiple concurrent VMs on the said hardware?

1 gig of data.....probably 10 users.

Absolutely.

Do it.

VS would be perfect for that.

People have this irrational fear of Virtualization for some reason. The technology is mature and work great. Virtual Server is awesome for disaster recovery purposes as well. One really great technique:

Add a virtual domain controller to your AD domain. Place it alone in a it's own AD Site so it gets little traffic if you want. If you ever have a major DR event you can have your AD up and running immediately with no concern whatsoever about the challenges that naturally come with a dissimilar hardware restore.


Tonyric: "stability issues with its Windows Server underpinnings" is a quite the nice steamy glop of FUD you just tried to get us to swallow.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: TonyRic
No, I do not consider Microsofts Virtual PC/Server to be enterprise ready. My job is to evaluate, test and implement virutal technologies. We have tested VPC/VS, Xen, Vituozzo and all of VMware's technologies. Xen is not *yet* ready for prime time, it is not yet stable enough, not can it *yet* run Windows unmodified and it is not usable on laptops where you NEED wireless connectivity. VPC/VS requires the additional expense and stability issues with its Windows Server underpinnings. This same argument holds true for VMWare Workstation and Server running on Windows. In this situation with regards to your question specifically, VMware Server/GSX running on Linux for performance and stability or VMWare ESX Server are the only platforms I would run on. For standard "I want to use this on my desktop/workstation to test other OS'", VPC/VS, VMware Workstation/GSX/Server on Windows is fine. Virtuozzo is a virtualization product that is great for server virtualization where all of the "Systems" are identical except for content.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I have also evaluated all the virtualization technologies and would encourage the OP to go with VMWare Server, preferably running on linux. I started out using VMware Workstation for testing and development, then ran a few servers within VMWare Server when it came out, and now I just installed 3 VMWare ESX Servers (oh they are SO worth the monies).

The free VMWare Server already saved me a ton of work twice. Once by being able to restore a snapshot, and once when a non-raided (I know, I know, bad Brazen, but I was in a pinch) harddrive died and I just restored backup copies of the virtual machine files to a new harddrive.

 

[TG2]

For that small amount of storage, def go with virtualizing it.

I setup a small business with a new 'file server' that the boss said he had to have within a week, but only to store certain files from the shipping dept.
Just bought another drive for the current file server and allocated that space to the VM machine (physical file server was all raid 5 and had backup on it)
he loves it..out of 72gb, think they filled 8gb up in over a year..including OS)

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: TonyRic
No, I do not consider Microsofts Virtual PC/Server to be enterprise ready. My job is to evaluate, test and implement virutal technologies. We have tested VPC/VS, Xen, Vituozzo and all of VMware's technologies. Xen is not *yet* ready for prime time, it is not yet stable enough, not can it *yet* run Windows unmodified and it is not usable on laptops where you NEED wireless connectivity. VPC/VS requires the additional expense and stability issues with its Windows Server underpinnings. This same argument holds true for VMWare Workstation and Server running on Windows. In this situation with regards to your question specifically, VMware Server/GSX running on Linux for performance and stability or VMWare ESX Server are the only platforms I would run on. For standard "I want to use this on my desktop/workstation to test other OS'", VPC/VS, VMware Workstation/GSX/Server on Windows is fine. Virtuozzo is a virtualization product that is great for server virtualization where all of the "Systems" are identical except for content.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I have also evaluated all the virtualization technologies and would encourage the OP to go with VMWare Server, preferably running on linux. I started out using VMware Workstation for testing and development, then ran a few servers within VMWare Server when it came out, and now I just installed 3 VMWare ESX Servers (oh they are SO worth the monies).

The free VMWare Server already saved me a ton of work twice. Once by being able to restore a snapshot, and once when a non-raided (I know, I know, bad Brazen, but I was in a pinch) harddrive died and I just restored backup copies of the virtual machine files to a new harddrive.

Gotta love the standardized hardware platform.

 

[Nothinman]

would encourage the OP to go with VMWare Server, preferably running on linux.

Seconded, VMWare on Windows is noticably slower than on Linux. Especially if you plan on using the host OS for more than just running VMs.

 

[Chadder007]

Thats really why I wanted to try it, because I recently go into restoring a Server to totally new computer after the first one got destroyed by lightning.....even though it was on an APC UPS unit. Im guessing we had bad grounding in the electrical setup. Went to restore to the new hardware and ...Bluescreen. It took forever to get it back up again.