Re: SBS in VM issues

If you want to go the official route (and recommended one imho) i'd say buy the Premium edition. That will give you an extra Windows Server 2008 license (2 actually, one physical and one virtual).

Install the Server 2008 as the host OS and enable the Hyper-V role. Then you can install SBS as a virtual machine on Hyper-V.

This link has some good info on it: http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/archi...alization.aspx

Kind regards,
Phil

Submitted via EggHeadCafe
Microsoft .NET DataBase Access For Beginners
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/training-...y-Samples.aspx

Or use the free Hyper-V Server. No GUI, but it's free, fully supported, and
works well.

For fax, look at one of the USB to IP solutions. I use Kernel Pro
(www.kernelpro.com) but others have had success with FabulaTech.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> Philipp Muller wrote:
>> If you want to go the official route (and recommended one imho) i'd
>> say buy the Premium edition. That will give you an extra Windows
>> Server 2008 license (2 actually, one physical and one virtual).
>>
>> Install the Server 2008 as the host OS and enable the Hyper-V role.
>> Then you can install SBS as a virtual machine on Hyper-V.
>>
>> This link has some good info on it:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/archi...alization.aspx
>
> Aha, thanks.
>
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>

This is covered in detail in our book, but basically you leave the host NOT
joined to the domain. Whether it's running Hyper-V Server, or is a second
server as part of the Premium Edition. Disaster recovery is greatly
simplified if the host isn't joined to the domain whose only DC is hosted on
the physical server you're trying to recover. The EULA for the Premium
Edition explicitly allows for the +1 license (the Hyper-V host license) to
not be domain joined. As you know, normally all parts of an SBS package must
be installed on the SBS network and specifically the Second Server that
comes with Premium Edition (or the Premium Add-on for SBS 2011) requires
that the server be domain joined. But you can still have the host not domain
joined.

As for AV, the choices are pretty limited. I don't run AV on my host
servers, so couldn't say off hand.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> John wrote:
>> We use the Hyper-V core. Not having a GUI can be a pain sometimes,
>> but it works great. The HVremote info on TechNet helps, but the
>> original set up was more complicated for remote management. No USB
>> support for guests in Hyper-V either (for backups). But the Hyper-V
>> core can see and share a USB drive(s). Then from the guest, just map
>> a network drive to it (still get local USB speeds).
>
> So the host is a member server in the guest's domain, or just a client? I
> mean, since it's SBS do you have to join it with the wizard? Forgive me,
> but I never added a second server to an SBS before.
>
> With no GUI, what AV do you use on the host?
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>

It doesn't have 2010 on the cover.

That's an early guess at the cover, done well before the product name was
known or announced. The 2011 book is currently being written, and should be
in the stores in the spring.

Both will cover this. But in the 2011 book, I switch from using Server Core
as the host, to using the free Hyper-V Server, since it gives you additional
options even when you're running just the single SBS server, with no Premium
Add-on. But the realities are the same in both cases. You configure your
host, whether GUI or command line. Add HVRemote to make life easier (but it
isn't an absolute requirement, and isn't covered in the 2008 book since it
didn't exist yet.) Then you use a Windows 7 machine on the network to
configure VMs.

If you do this, I recommend making the host a Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008
R2 install if you don't have Premium Edition of 2008. Actually, even if you
do, since this way you get the R2 bits.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
>> This is covered in detail in our book,
>
> That would be the 2008 book, right? If so I'll buy it right now.
>
> Why does the 2011 book have "2010" on the cover, BTW?
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>

I cover the pluses and minuses of various RAID levels, but do not make
specific recommendations for which volumes to put where. Frankly, if the
RAID controller is a good enough one, and the underlying drives are fast SAS
drives, I think it has become less of an issue, especially in the SBS space.

With 72 GB for your RAID1, I would put the host OS there, and nothing else.
With the Hyper-V Server, it's a bit larger than necessary, but better that
than too constrained. I suppose there's room for a small VHD for something
there, but there isn't enough space to really do much with.

I'm a strong believer in fixed size VHDs for production systems. Passthrough
is not worth the loss of flexibility and DR capability for the minimal gain
in speed.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
>> It doesn't have 2010 on the cover.
>>
>> That's an early guess at the cover, done well before the product name
>> was known or announced. The 2011 book is currently being written, and
>> should be in the stores in the spring.
>
> I'm reading the 2008 on Kindle now. In my case I have a 72GB RAID 1 and a
> much larger RAID 5 array. Normally I would put the main data store and
> Exchange store on the RAID 5, and pagefile, shadow copies and Exchange
> logs on the RAID 1.
>
> I haven't read far enough yet, but is there coverage of optimizing data
> volumes for the VMs?
>
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>

I'm sure that's true. Frankly, I can't think of any viable reason to want to
run the older, pre-R2 version.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
>> Both will cover this. But in the 2011 book, I switch from using
>> Server Core as the host, to using the free Hyper-V Server, since it
>> gives you additional options even when you're running just the single
>> SBS server, with no Premium Add-on. But the realities are the same in
>> both cases. You configure your host, whether GUI or command line. Add
>> HVRemote to make life easier (but it isn't an absolute requirement,
>> and isn't covered in the 2008 book since it didn't exist yet.) Then
>> you use a Windows 7 machine on the network to configure VMs.
>>
>> If you do this, I recommend making the host a Microsoft Hyper-V
>> Server 2008 R2 install if you don't have Premium Edition of 2008.
>> Actually, even if you do, since this way you get the R2 bits.
>
> It looks like R2 is the only HVS you can download now, unless I
> misunderstood the above.
>
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>

Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
> I cover the pluses and minuses of various RAID levels, but do not make
> specific recommendations for which volumes to put where. Frankly, if
> the RAID controller is a good enough one, and the underlying drives
> are fast SAS drives, I think it has become less of an issue,
> especially in the SBS space.
> With 72 GB for your RAID1, I would put the host OS there, and nothing
> else. With the Hyper-V Server, it's a bit larger than necessary, but
> better that than too constrained. I suppose there's room for a small
> VHD for something there, but there isn't enough space to really do
> much with.
> I'm a strong believer in fixed size VHDs for production systems.
> Passthrough is not worth the loss of flexibility and DR capability
> for the minimal gain in speed.

I am really surprised, though, that the best practice is to put the data
stores on VHDs. I would have thought it was more efficient to let the VM
mount a physical volume.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Not materially more efficient. MS did some studies at about the time of the
RTM of Hyper-V, and the difference between pass through and fixed size VHD
was a few percent -- around 4-5%, depending on exact load. That is a small
enough difference to make the choice fairly simple. Go with VHDs. Mount them
on good quality, highly efficient, RAID subsystems.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/Russel


"Tom Del Rosso" <> wrote in message
news:VfydnQgxQJ6W3LrQnZ2dnUVZ_r-...
>
> Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
>> I cover the pluses and minuses of various RAID levels, but do not make
>> specific recommendations for which volumes to put where. Frankly, if
>> the RAID controller is a good enough one, and the underlying drives
>> are fast SAS drives, I think it has become less of an issue,
>> especially in the SBS space.
>> With 72 GB for your RAID1, I would put the host OS there, and nothing
>> else. With the Hyper-V Server, it's a bit larger than necessary, but
>> better that than too constrained. I suppose there's room for a small
>> VHD for something there, but there isn't enough space to really do
>> much with.
>> I'm a strong believer in fixed size VHDs for production systems.
>> Passthrough is not worth the loss of flexibility and DR capability
>> for the minimal gain in speed.
>
> I am really surprised, though, that the best practice is to put the data
> stores on VHDs. I would have thought it was more efficient to let the VM
> mount a physical volume.
>
>
> --
>
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
>