Virtualised SharePoint Environment

[jsiegmund]

Hi there,

I'm currently planning the installation of a new server which will host our SharePoint 2007 installation. The current installation is hosted in a VM environment (not entirely sure which one), but takes a lot of system resources slowing down other machines hosted on the same server. Therefore, our system administrators descided the SharePoint server should be moved onto it's own server.

The new server is quite a nice machine, dual P4 quad core processor with 8GB of memory. Now I've been doubting on what to do. I see the folowwing two options:

1. Install a clean Windows 2003 SP3 server, install SharePoint/MOSS on it and run. That means this single server acts as a DB server, Application Server and front end web server. I'm pretty sure the hardware would allow this for now, but I'm also quite sure scalability is a bit compromised.

2. Install VM to host 3 different servers for Front End, Application Server and a DB Server. This means I would have to install 3 Win2003 installations and setup MOSS as a server farm (which it is kind of meant to be). This idea is very attractive, but I have a few little doubts about this. For instance, how is the network traffic between the virtual servers handled? Is this going to take up a lot of processor time slowing the systems down? Is network traffic between virtual hosts routed via the network, or doesn't it leave the machine's host adapter? Also, this means I have to split up the memory dividing it between the servers. Instead of 8GB of avalable memory, all server instances wouldn't have more than ~2.5GB each.

I thought it would probably be a good idea to check out if other people have already done such installations, and what's a better place to ask than on the VM community forum I'm really interested in the ideas/experiences on this one.

[Rob_Bohmann1]

Network traffic between 2 virtual servers residing on the same physical ESX host is a memory to memory transfer. The data never sees the nic.

yes you can divide up the memory between each of the 3 guest servers as needed, does not have to be even. So the web server may get more or less than the app server, and both may get less than the DB server (1.5, 2, 4 GB) or some other division. Remember that the hypervisor will create its own memory needs (figure 1/2 - 3/4 GB), if only 3 vms maybe a little less. You can specify how much memory the service console is allocated, minimum is 272 MB max is 800 MB.

I would try it definitely. Worst case is you have to add another host or pull one of hte servers off the ESX host to run on a physical they are heavy hitters and the host is constrained.

You do not have failover but then with individual physicals you would not either.

[bjd145-1]

Do you know what Microsoft's stance is in terms of support for Sharepoint in production? I can' seem to find any official information from Microsoft concerning this.

[jsiegmund]

I placed the exact same question at Microsofts MSDN forum. Got a rather negative reply there, but it's still a quite fresh topic like it is here (though I'm used to slow responses on MSDN).

The reply on my MSDN thread is a little what I'm affraid for, and he's telling me not to virtualize. He's right about distributing the installation later, it's not that difficult (but copying a VM machine seems a lot easier still).

Still in doubts

[jsiegmund]

Network traffic between 2 virtual servers residing on the same physical ESX host is a memory to memory transfer. The data never sees the nic.

Hi Rob. Do you perhaps have some VM documentation in which I can read how this works exactly? My network admin wants to know how this traffic is exactly routed and he was unable to find any evidence of this functionality actually being available in VM environments.

Thanks in advance.

[RParker]

> Network traffic between 2 virtual servers residing on the same physical ESX host is a memory to memory transfer. The data never sees the nic.

That's not true. It still transfers the data, it doesn't see the PHYSICAL NIC, but a virtual switch is identical to a physical switch, and the data still flows via the vSwitch. There are no collisions since it doesn't have to deal with the ethernet cloud, the data is not trasferred in memory, it uses the internal switch.

[RParker]

Some VM's are not suitable for use, and I would not advise that you put Sharepoint in a VM. It's slow enough as it is.... It really needs a physical host. It may work, but it would be better on a physical host.

A good rule of thumb for MS support for VM environments, is since they have their own VS product, you can visit the homepage, and see what *.vhd they have for download. It's a safe bet that if you don't see a demo of an environment available, they do have Sharepoint available, but I would convert it and try it for yourself to see how well you like the performance.

[Jasemccarty]

That's funny...

I remember reading a Windows IT Pro article about the best way to virtualize a SharePoint environment.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/95846/95846.html

Don't some of the guys that write for this magazine work at Microsoft?

Jase McCarty

[canadait]

Been running Sharepoint with Project Server and SQL all on a VM for 2+ years with no issues.

We have contacted MS support with multiple issues and there was no problems with support arrangements.

[tlowe]

We run our sharepoint and exchagne server in VM no issuses.

[canadait]

Could you describe your exchange enviroment?

1. of users

Version

Store size

Etc

Thanks

[tlowe]

Exchange 2007 with front end and backend

Front end has Hub transport and Antispam

Backend has mailbox store

1300 users

1tb of storage

[canadait]

Vmdks or rdms for backend. What is backend storage details? # disks,protocol,protection etc.

Is that 1300 concurrent or # of employees?

Thanks

[tlowe]

The servers are VMDK's. The backend just has more mappings for hard drive storage. It has one storage group running Symantec End Point. We use a Gateway for our main protection. We have 1300 employees but atleast 1000 are conected at once. We use webmail, outlook 2007, activesync, and a blackberry server also virtual.

[Hairyman]

Good topic as we are looking at moving our Sharepoint system to a VM, currently physical. We have our entire local exchange 2007 system virtualised, Client access / hub transport / mailbox on three different VMs all works fine and none of our users have any idea that there is a virtual machine providing the email to them.

We only have about 300 odd employee's with computers so sharepoint in a VM shouldn't be an issue, it's currently on a Dell PE 1850. all VMDKs using Dell 1955 Blades and an EMC CX3-20 FC SAN.

[jsiegmund]

Been running Sharepoint with Project Server and SQL all on a VM for 2+ years with no issues.

We have contacted MS support with multiple issues and there was no problems with support arrangements.

Sound good, but do you run seperate VM's for each task (Project, SQL, SharePoint) or do you actually have the entire SharePoint environment split up in Front End, Application and database server roles? I'm still not entirely convinced, but it's good to hear I'm not the only one trying to run a setup like this

By the way, our SharePoint usage isn't that big. I think an absolute maximum of 50-60 concurrent users won't be exceeded in the next two or three years.

[jsiegmund]

That's funny...

I remember reading a Windows IT Pro article about the best way to virtualize a SharePoint environment.

Don't some of the guys that write for this magazine work at Microsoft?

Jase McCarty

Unfortunately I don't have an account to view that article

[Boisee]

That's funny...

I remember reading a Windows IT Pro article about the best way to virtualize a SharePoint environment.

Don't some of the guys that write for this magazine work at Microsoft?

Jase McCarty

Unfortunately I don't have an account to view that article

I have a pdf of the article. Send me a pm with your email and i'll forward it to you.

[Jasemccarty]

I unfortunately don't have access to it electronically either.

I do have the hard copy magazine however.

Send me the PDF also, if you would. (firstname AT firstnamelastname DOT com)

Thanks,

Jase

Jase McCarty