Virtualizing remote desktop computers

[Fardringle]

I have a small business client that currently has a few people working from home. Because of the nature of the software that they use, the program has to be running in the office (it's a network bandwidth hog and does not play nice over VPN) so they are using VNC to connect to a couple of older XP Pro desktop machines that are tucked in a corner of their server room. It works OK, but the client wants to update and streamline things, and get rid of the old power hungry desktops.

I have an idea to manage this but I'd like some input and suggestions on how to do it (or ways to do it different/better).

The client is also preparing to replace their very old dual P4 Xeon server running SBS 2003 with a new and much faster server running Server 2008 or Server 2012 (depending on whether compatibility issues with their office software and Server 2012 get resolved soon). They only have the one server and it really only serves as a domain controller and file server. He is not interested in paying the relatively high extra cost to purchase a Terminal Server license (plus the ridiculous extra fees that the office management software charges for running on a Terminal Server).

I'm wondering if it would be feasible to run multiple virtual machines on the new server (with a desktop OS - either XP Pro or Win7 Pro) and let the remote users connect directly to those VMs to do their work. The software they use is not resource intensive at all. They almost never use more than 1GB of RAM total even with the management software, Outlook, Word, and many company web pages open, and the CPU usage is almost zero the majority of the time.

Another option would be to get one powerful new desktop machine and run the VMs there, but I suspect it will be easier to manage multiple VMs in a true server environment.

Apart from the need to add sufficient RAM to the server so that enough RAM can be dedicated to the 3 or 4 desktop VMs without affecting the performance of the server itself, I can't think of any potential issues with this solution. Please let me know if I'm missing anything that could cause problems.

 

[drebo]

The issue you'll run into is a licensing issue. Microsoft licensing states that only VLK licensed desktop OSes (that'd be Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8) can be virtualized. The cost of a VLK license for Windows 8 (which would allow you to downgrade to 7) is far more expensive than a TS CAL. You need the Windows Server CALs anyway. Additionally, any MS Office software running on the virtualized OS would need to be VLK as well, which is considerably more expensive than OEM.

So, yes, it can be done. Hyper-V would be great for doing it. However, you're not going to save any money over just using a terminal server.

Also, in regards to the virtualization topology, if you are going to run VMs in Hyper-V, don't try to run anything on the host server except for Hyper-V. Server 2012 licensing allows you to run two virtual machines in addition to the host. Make use of them. It makes for much better resource sharing, in my experience.

 

[Fardringle]

So standard retail OS (and MS Office) licenses can't be used in a VM on a server? If so, that does complicate things a bit. Or is it just the OEM versions that aren't allowed in a virtual environment?

Unfortunately, the Terminal Server CAL itself isn't the only cost consideration. The insurance agency management software that they use requires special licenses if used in a TS environment, and that is a very significant cost on top of the regular software licensing, so it's really not a feasible option. It would be quite a bit cheaper to buy completely new desktops and just have the remote users connect to those machines instead.

 

[imagoon]

Ignoring licensing, you also need to look at how the app is a hog. If it is really heavy random disk for some reason, you can sink a server that doesn't have the I/O available to it. IOPS are not related to sequential disk rates so it can be fairly deceiving. RAM tends to be the easiest but CPU can be another issue. 4 VM's hammering a 4 core CPU can leave the host CPU starved since it is the DC / file server at the same time.

 

[Fardringle]

The software they use isn't very disk intensive on the clients, but it can be somewhat 'busy' on the server drives. It doesn't use much CPU or RAM on the clients or the server.

 

[Hero1711]

For OS, you can install the retail version of Windows 7 to the VMs and activate them legally. But for Windows 8, there is no "full retail" version of it. To install and activate Windows 8 legally on VMs you must purchase Software Assurance to Windows (about $30-55 per year), and purchase a Virtual Desktop Access subscription (about $80-100 per year), OR purchase a Windows Intune Subscription ($116-132 per year) which also includes Windows 8 Enterprise.

For Office, check out Office 365 Office 365 plan for business

 

[Fardringle]

The VMs would be running Windows 7 (or possibly XP), so the Windows 8 issue doesn't apply. Also, after working out the logistics on paper instead of just in my head, I would actually only need to have two desktop VMs running so that would make a significantly smaller impact on the server than the 3-4 I was originally thinking of.

 

[JoeBleed]

ah, i think there may be some confusion here. could mostly be me.

I think the OP wants to run a full windows server on the new machine and run something like either virtual pc or vmware workstation and launch the guest OS through them and access them through their remote desktop offerings not virtualize the whole thing. Yes or no?

I can understand virtualizing the whole thing, but this is where it seems you come into the issue of licensing. I'm not sure, but i don't think you'd run into that issue the other way. I've also never actually heard the licensing restrictions mentioned above about the desktop OS needing to be a volume license to be legally virtualized.

 

[Fardringle]

Your description is correct, JoeBleed. The physical machine will be running either Server 2008 or Server 2013 and acting as a domain controller and file server for the 20-ish employees in the office. I would also like to run a pair of virtual machines (preferably on the same box if possible) running Windows XP or Windows 7 and those two VMs will be available for remote users to log in to using VNC or remote desktop so that they can have a "computer" in the office where they can access the agency management software that they need.

The main issue I see is some confusion about the licensing issue. I can see the reasoning behind not allowing OEM licenses in a VM since that's not what OEMs are for, but the question is whether I need actual VLK licenses for the Windows 7 virtual OS installations, and whether a relatively inexpensive server (something like an Xeon® E5-2420 1.90GHz with 16GB RAM) could handle domain controller and file server duties while hosting two pretty low impact Win7 VMs. Frankly, a single CPU core could probably handle all of the actual server duties, and that CPU has 6 cores so I could even dedicate 1 or 2 cores to each VM and still have a couple left for the server if that would make things behave better.

 

[JoeBleed]

For you size of AD i think it will be fine. Up until recently we ran our local DC on an old p3 with 2 gig of ram and we have a much larger AD than you seem to. Our file server used to house file serving/DC/Exchange/print server/application server and it's an old opteron 275 with 4 gig ram. We had to split off AD because we were starting to have issues with that old server. making use of the old p3 hardware worked fine. but it worked fine for 3-4 years i think it was. A good reinstall would have straightened it all out though.

As long as you're right about the load of the VMs and that software for them. You could also try and convert your existing xp machines to VMs. i think most of the main providers offer some form of conversion tool that will scan the hard drive and make an image to use. I've had mixed results depending on what they were. But for testing it wouldn't hurt. the ones for vmware and virtual pc i know don't damage the local machine, though a backup is always a good plan.

 

[quikah]

You are still going to run into license issues. You cannot REMOTELY access a Windows VM with a regular license. Remote access is the key wrinkle. Talk to a MS licensing expert, it is stupidly complicated.

 

[smakme7757]

Server 2012 Standard and Datacenter are both licensed to run 2 and unlimited virtual machines on the host respectively. So that would cover your operating system costs. So if you were to invest in 2012 Datacenter you wouldn't have to purchase any licenses for Windows that will be virtualized on that host.
FYI:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/buy.aspx

From the keynote I listened to on Hyper-V 2012 R2 it seems that Server 2012 R2 Datacenter will automatically activate Windows virtual machines as long as the host server is activated.

Then you have to think about Office licenses as mentioned above as well as CALs. It might be worthwhile finding someone with experience buying from MS who understands their policies to help you further.

And as mentioned above, I/O will most likely be your bottleneck, so you should check that and make sure you have enough I/O otherwise users will complain of slow and sluggish machines.

 

[JoeBleed]

with all of this talk about license issues, i'd say fuck it and setup two atom based systems if they'll handle the cpu load of that software and stick them in the rack. you can even buy a 1 or 2u case that houses two itx boards in one unit. Even with long term power consumption, it may be cheaper than license fees. Especially if you have to get involved with software assurance.

I know MS has a lot of od tricky license scheme but i'd never though you couldn't install a retail win7pro into say VMware workstation and legally let someone access it remotely.

Given that it's some fat, proprietary software package, I don't suppose they offer a Linux/bsd compatible version you could use? Or maybe by some magic get it to work in Linux using something like wine or what ever it is these days?

My gripe aside, don't rule out talking to a few licensing experts. I say a few because the company I was working for was getting a bit reamed on office license from our last place. I don't deal with it so I can't tell you much about it. With all the confusion, i'm willing to bet you may get at least one different answer of the three.

 

[Fardringle]

If I'm going to go through the hassle of purchasing and setting up new Atom machines, I'll just keep the existing old P4 machines. The power savings aren't worth the cost of the new machines and my experiences using remote desktop/VNC to connect to Atom computers have not been pleasant since the CPU is just too slow.

As I believe I mentioned before (but maybe not clearly) I already have retail Windows OS and MS Office licenses on the existing old machines. There is no cost involved for licenses since I already have them unless I need to purchase VLK licenses as drebo mentioned at the beginning of this discussion.

To answer your other comment, the agency management software they use will not run in Linux (or MacOS). It won't even run in Windows 8, and only runs with serious 'tweaking' in Vista. It's a picky piece of junk but really is the only viable software option for what they do (insurance broker). XP and Win7 are the only desktop OS options, which is why those are the two being used in the office.

The only questions I see are: 1) Can it work at all (and legally)? and 2) Can the basic system specs I mentioned for the server handle two relatively low impact VMs?

 

[Fardringle]

Actually, to complicate things a bit I do have another question/scenario...

Since they have less than 25 total users, I am looking into the possibility of using Server 2012 Essentials on the Domain Controller as that would save a LOT of money in CAL license costs. However, I have found a lot of conflicting information online about running a VM on Server Essentials. I know that it cannot run Hyper-V, but what about other VM options like VMWare or VirtualBox? Some sites say yes, some say no. If Essentials can't run VMs at all, then that might answer my original question since client CAL costs for Server 2012 (or 2008) Standard would be more than the cost to just buy two completely new desktop machines to use as the VNC/Remote Desktop hosts, and in that case I might as well just keep the old machines running the way they are now.

 

[imagoon]

If they are retail box OS + Office then they can be in a virtual machine. Windows 8 has a special stipulation for certain versions being used as virtual desktops but otherwise the retail licenses are straight forward in that regard. Essentials doesn't run Hyper-V. Anything else can run a VM on it like VMWare workstation or the like.

 

[Fardringle]

I'm sorry it took a while to reply. Real life interferes far too often..

Thank you all for your input. When the client is ready to replace his server, I'll try running the two Win7 VMs on the server to see how well they behave along with the other server functions. I don't anticipate any problems, but I wanted to make sure it was actually possible to do it within the limitations of the server OS.

 

[Lifted]

With regards to licensing, this doc may help.

http://download.microsoft.com/downl.../licensing_windows7_with_VM_technologies.docx

Relevant portion:

· Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) desktops

o Description: The Windows Client OS runs within Virtual Machines (VMs) in the datacenter on a hypervisor platform (such as Hyper-V). These virtual desktops are accessed from either PCs, thin clients or other devices.

o Licensing solution: Since the devices are accessing Windows Client OS running within VMs, they would need either active Software Assurance, VDA or Windows Intune licenses, depending on the device type. Additionally, roaming use rights would also apply, depending on the scenario and user.

It appears you'd only need a Windows 7/8 Pro license with SA. Software Assurance is pretty cheap so it should be a non issue.

Edit: Since you mentioned it would only be a few users, you could probably get by with a simple quad core desktop PC running a free hypervisor. A reasonable PC could be had for ~ $1k with a ton of RAM and RAID 1.

 

[Fardringle]

Edit: Since you mentioned it would only be a few users, you could probably get by with a simple quad core desktop PC running a free hypervisor. A reasonable PC could be had for ~ $1k with a ton of RAM and RAID 1.

Thank you for the licensing info. I have considered using a separate PC for the VMs as well, but I'd like to keep things as simple as possible if it will actually work on the server.