Virtualization Frontier

Why ServerGeeks Should Care About Desktops

ToddMuirhead — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:59:33 GMT

As a self-acknowledged servergeek, I enjoy learning about the details of Microsoft Exchange 2007, SQL Server Mirroring, Oracle RAC, and VMware HA. I spend a lot of my time analyzing the configuration of systems with tons of processing cores and RAM of 32, 64, and 128 GB. I even have my own open source project (along with Dave) that is a test OLTP database for SQL, Oracle, and MySQL that includes driver programs, build files, and load scripts.

So why should I get involved with desktops? Because a lot of people are now considering using those big servers to host desktops-as Virtual Machines-inside the data center. The advantages of this approach can include better security of data, easier management of clients, and potential cost savings. In some ways it's an extension of many of the advantages of server virtualization, but for desktops. So pay attention: the desktop may be coming into your data center.

Todd

ESX 3.5 Update 2 Passes Microsoft SVVP Validation Test

ToddMuirhead — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:18:00 GMT

Wow that was fast. It was only a couple of weeks ago that VMware joined the Microsoft Software Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) and now ESX 3.5 Update 2 has been offically certified under that program. This means that now ESX and Hyper-V are supported virtualization platforms for running Microsoft applications. This removes a big issue that many customers had regarding support for Microsoft apps like Exchange, SQL Server, and SharePoint when running on VMware ESX. Check out the Microsoft Virtualization Team Blog and Scott Lowe's blog for some some additional details.

Todd

Poor Man's Fail-over for Free ESXi

ToddMuirhead — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:24:00 GMT

During last week's chat the we discussed ESXi licensing and features. In the features portion of the discussion flakrat asked if it was possible to setup two ESXi servers with shared storage to be able to do a manual fail-over of a VM between the two servers. I was able to create this setup and confirm that it works. Read on for details.

The setup that I used to test was two PowerEdge R805 servers with ESXi Update 2 refresh installed on the hard drive. This was the currently available "free" ESXi installable from VMware's web site. To install I used the Dell Remote Access Card (DRAC) virtual media capability to boot from the ESXi ISO I downloaded. I selected the local hard disk as the location to install and let it complete. Once installed, I used the ESXi configuration to set the password, IP, gateway, and hostname for each server. I then installed the Virtual Infrastructure client on a windows server and used that to manage each of the R805 servers individually.

For shared storage I used a PowerVault MD3000i iSCSI storage array. I enabled the iSCSI software initiator on each server and discovered the the MD3000i. On server A, I created a VMFS partition and created a new VM called VMTest1. I installed Windows Server 2008 64-bit Enterprise Edition. After install completed I shutdown the VM on server A. I then went to server B and rescanned the storage adapters. It found the new VMFS partition on the shared iSCSI LUN. I created a VM using the same settings as I had on Server A including the same virutal hard disk file. I then boot the VM successfully.

The most interesting part of this test was to verify that the cluster file system of VMFS was still working without Virtual Center in the picture. So with the VM still running on Server B, I tried to start it on Server A - and I got an error message that the file was in use by another server. This was great because it showed that it would not be possible to run the VM at the same time on both servers.

We will chat more about this on today's chat - ESX and ESXi.

Todd

Virtualization Blog en espanol

ToddMuirhead — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 05:17:00 GMT

Jose Maria, a Dell virtualization guru and member of delltechcenter, has his own virtualizaiton blog that he writes en espanol. Even after taking 2 years in high school and 2 more years in college I still need lots of hand waving and gesturing to get by when attempting to speak Spanish. Jose Maria is a native speaker who does very well with English as well, but has started his blog to reach the large audience of technical minded Spanish speakers. He has many excellent posts and updates it several times a week with entries that disucss the latest developments in the virtualization industry. This is a great opportunity for those of you that would prefer to get some technical content en espanol and for me to brush up on my Spanish.

I've put a link to his blog right on the delltechcenter home page, giving it some international feel.

Todd

Support for Microsoft in VMware VMs

ToddMuirhead — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:58:00 GMT

A question that has come up many times over the last several years is that of support of Microsoft software when running in VMware VMs. This blog entry by Mark Bowler at Liquefying IT has some great stats that show a majority of people are running Microsoft in their VMs and that the support picture is fuzzy for some of them. If you have a Microsoft Premier Support agreement they will support you when running on VMware, but they do reserve the right to have you reproduce it on hardware. Mark then points out a new program from Microsoft to provide validation of virtualized environments which would then lead to the ability for customers to receive technical support.

The program is called the Windows Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) and currently lists four other virtualizaiton vendors: Citrix, Novell, Sun, and Virtual Iron. Notably absent from the list is VMware.

Dell provides support for Microsoft operating systems running in VMware VMs which is detailed in this customer letter and on VMware's webpage on Support for Microsoft Software in VMware Virtual Machines:

"For customers who purchase OEM VMware products with Dell hardware and Dell Gold Enterprise Support or Dell ProSupport, the vendor provides end-to-end support-including the VMware software and certified Microsoft operating systems that are run within virtual machines."

Todd

Virtual Exchange Server for Home

ToddMuirhead — Tue, 27 May 2008 04:29:00 GMT

As many of you have probably figured out by now, I've spent a lot of time working with Exchange in VMs. Some of that time was spent explaining to peers, users, customers, and family members just exactly why in the world anybody would want to put Exchange into a VM. (To be honest - I don't think I was able to convince my mom.)

Early this week I ran across an entry titled Eight Good Uses for VMware and Other Virtual Machine Software on the TechnologySpeak blog. Number three on the list - Running an Exchange Server to Keep Outlook Synchronized. Turns out that having a local Exchange Server on your home network can make it much easier and faster to sync up Outlook across the 4 or 5 systems that you have at your house. If you are reading this entry, then I would bet that you have at least that many.

The only caveats that the blog calls out:

"The initial setup is a little bit tricky if you're not familiar with installing servers and server software, but once you get it going, it works very smoothly. Also, for many, the initial cost of buying the software might be prohibitive."

Meaning that you have to be a geek or a professional Exchange admin or both. On the cost perspective I initially thought that it might be really really prohibitive, but a little digging around and it looks like Microsoft Small Business Server licenses aren't too bad. The list price for SBS R2 is $599, which includes the Windows Server OS, Exchange Server, and 5 CALs.

With the memorial holiday weekend coming up, I think that everybody should take a break from the grill and spend some time getting your own virtualized Exchange Server setup for the house.

Todd

VMmark Results Point to Best Performance

ToddMuirhead — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:25:00 GMT

New VMmark benchmark results highlight that the best performance for a single server is a 4-socket (or 16 cores with Quad-Core processors). This means that the R900 and R905 are at the top of the list, with the Intel based R900 slightly ahead of the AMD based R905. So if you absolutely need the most performance possible from a single server - then this is the way to go.

A little bit of analysis could lead you to believe that the 2-socket (or 8 core) servers are actually better performing. The VMmark score for the 4-socket R900 is 14.23 with 10 tiles, but the VMark score for the 2-socket 2950 III is 8.47 with 6 tiles. So on a per socket basis, the two-socket 2950 III is actually providing more performance. The same holds true for the two-socket M600 blade and two-socket R805 2U server.

There is much more to choosing a server than the results of a single benchmark, but I think that these results are fair barometers of performance. In general performance does not scale in a linear fashion when moving from 2-socket servers to 4-socket servers, and this seems to hold true with virtualization.

Todd

Hyper-V Quick Migration Part II

ToddMuirhead — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:15:00 GMT

The second post on the Microsoft Virtualzation Team Blog about Quick Migration and VMotion was added a few days ago. It is mostly a discussion about how VMware HA and Quick Migration both provide a failover solution for UNplanned downtime. I agree with Jeff that both do basically the same thing in the event of an unplanned server outage - the VM is moved to another server and restarted.

The difference that he doesn't talk about is that the rules of the failover are different because of the underlying filesystem that is used in each solution. Microsoft Hyper-V and Quick Migration are using the tried and true Microsoft failover-clustering, which uses an NTFS filesystem on the shared storage. As this is not a cluster file system, the shared storage is actually only visible to one of the servers at a time to prevent corruption. VMware ESX server and VMware HA are working with VMs that are on a VMFS file system which is cluster aware - meaning that multiple ESX servers are able to access the files (or VMs in other words) at the same time.

So following a failure of a Hyper-V server, all VMs on the same disk (or LUN) must be recovered on the same server because the LUN or disk can only be used by one server at a time. In the event of a failure of an ESX server, the VMs can be restarted on any ESX server that has access to the LUN. In order to achieve this flexibility with Hyper-V and Quick Migration it would be necessary to have each VM on it's own LUN. This isn't impossible, but could be more complex to setup and manage.

The end result would be same - the VMs would be restarted on another server. Some of the underlying details can make a difference with flexibility in where those VMs end up.

Todd