SBS 2008 and Hyper-V Server

Migrating from SBS2003 to SBS2008 you already need to renew the hdw
(64bits).
My idea is that even if you have one business (SQL) application, you want
SBS Premium.
Now the choice is one physical server (SBS+SQL), or two servers (one 64b/one
32b), or one new physical server. with WS2008 and Hyper-V role enabled.
With HVRemote the environment is quite manageable.
The idea that I can tune my servers with Hyper-V depending on server load is
attractive. Not much experience though. Experimented a bit with the number
of cores in each virtual machine and memory.At the moment each server is
equal, i.e. quad-core and 4GB.
There is also some sw development load; this is done on the SQL machine. So
you do not affect the SBS server with the "production" functions, like mail,
shared folders, printing and Sharepoint.
Last but not least, also the "green" aspect of the new technology was a
deciding factor to go all 64bits.

"Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." <spam-> wrote in message
news:...
> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server. I am
> amazed
> that Microsoft could put out such a crippled product as Hyper-V Server. I
> am
> seriously questioning whether this is a viable production configuration.
> Not
> to have a GUI is one thing, but essentially Hyper-V Server has no local
> interface whatsoever for managing the virtual servers. Getting the MMC to
> work remotely was a nightmare and may not even have been possible without
> the HVREMOTE script that I found on a blog. Yes, it's working, but I fear
> that if something goes wrong it will be extremely difficult to fix without
> a
> functioning local management interface. I know I could install a full
> Windows Server 2008 (SBS Premium) and have a GUI and MMC as the
> hypervisor,
> but that may be a tough sell in the SMB segment. Also, while one could run
> other services and roles on that parent server, that would defeat the
> purpose of having a simple machine *just* to be the hypervisor. It seems
> as
> though Hyper-V Server is more Hype than Server.
>
> That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines for
> this previously uncharted territory? How does one intelligently set up and
> manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine? Or is it better just to stick
> with
> installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave virtualization to those
> who
> have graduated from the SMB space? Finally, can an SBS 2008 be virtualized
> after the fact through some sort of conversion process?
>
>
>
>

Inline:

-Cliff


"AF" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:40:45 -0500, "Andrew M. Saucci, Jr."
> <spam-> wrote:
>
>> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server.
> I am amazed that any one in his right mind would try a recordless
> product in a production environment. There is a reason why the giants
> run vmware.

Yeah, vmware has been hypervisor virtualization for a few years longer than
MS. Large companies that made the move early didn't have Hyper-V as an
OPTION, and once invested, aren't going to make a switch. *THAT* is just
silly. That is *not* a valid argument against Hyper-V *now.* Not exactly a
fair comparison.

> If I were you, I would try ESXi. If you like it an need a community,
> migrate to ESX.
How is this different from migrating from Hyper-V Server 2k8 to Windows
Server 2k8 Ent. with Hyper-V role?

> For all that I care, and after I saw apple to apple comparison, as of
> now Hyper-V is nothing but hyper marketing, Just like Vista.
> My 2 cents.
Hyper-V does have a few missing features. Most notably live migrations
(VMotion for VMWare.) But VMWare charges for this extra feature, and this
is coming to Hyper-V in win2k8 R2. ESX is also better with handling SAN
LUNs. Multiple VMs can be hold a LUN and be ready to use it, making for
better HA scenarios. So basically what I'm saying is that there are places
where ESX makes sense. But Hyper-V *is* a rock-solid product for what it
offers (it doesn't overpromise) and is a compelling alternative in many
scenarios. Calling it 'hyper marketing' is truly unfair.


> --
> AF

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:40:30 -0700, "Cliff Galiher"
<> wrote:

>
>Yeah, vmware has been hypervisor virtualization for a few years longer than
>MS. Large companies that made the move early didn't have Hyper-V as an
>OPTION, and once invested, aren't going to make a switch. *THAT* is just
>silly. That is *not* a valid argument against Hyper-V *now.* Not exactly a
>fair comparison.

This thread can go forever, so I will stop here. I will test Hyper V
again in 2010.
--
AF

Andrew M. Saucci, Jr. wrote on 01/04/2009 21:40 ET
> I managed to get SBS 2008 running on a Hyper-V Server. I am amaze
> that Microsoft could put out such a crippled product as Hyper-V Server. I a
> seriously questioning whether this is a viable production configuration. No
> to have a GUI is one thing, but essentially Hyper-V Server has no loca
> interface whatsoever for managing the virtual servers. Getting the MMC t
> work remotely was a nightmare and may not even have been possible withou
> the HVREMOTE script that I found on a blog. Yes, it's working, but I fea
> that if something goes wrong it will be extremely difficult to fix without
> functioning local management interface. I know I could install a ful
> Windows Server 2008 (SBS Premium) and have a GUI and MMC as the hypervisor
> but that may be a tough sell in the SMB segment. Also, while one could ru
> other services and roles on that parent server, that would defeat th
> purpose of having a simple machine *just* to be the hypervisor. It seems a
> though Hyper-V Server is more Hype than Server
>
> That said, has anyone developed some best practice guidelines fo
> this previously uncharted territory? How does one intelligently set up an
> manage an SBS 2008 in a virtual machine? Or is it better just to stick wit
> installing SBS 2008 on a real machine and leave virtualization to those wh
> have graduated from the SMB space? Finally, can an SBS 2008 be virtualize
> after the fact through some sort of conversion process
>
I recommend to check out vtCommander (http://vtcommander.com). You can creat
and manage virtual machines, interact with them, change their settings, manag
virtual hard disks and virtual networks. Has been very useful for me.