Vitualizing a "Jack of all trades" server?

Hello All,

I have a server running Microsoft Server 2003 SBS. We are small, to medium size company and this is the only real server we have.

The server manages network backups, hosts quick books, hosts all network files as well as being the host for the domain, amongst a few other things. So, from what you can see the server is kind of all over the place in what it manages and maintains.

The server has a 2.4ghz Xeon quad-core processor, and 4 gigs of RAM. So it isn't overly powerful of a server, It works, but it is no rack mount or blade server.

The reason I am giving all this background information about the unit is that the CEO of my company wants to virtualize the Domain server, a system that is not quite "taxed" per say, but is still doing a lot of company work, and will be doing more in the near future. I have always learned that it is never really a good idea to split up your Domain Controller, and not to over load it or else you will end up with a lot of head aches and a slow network(which is exactly what I am trying to get this company away from.) Virtualizing the domain controller would be doing exactly what I have always been told NOT to do.

I have never ran a virtualized system before. I have used them, and had a little to do with managing one or two in the past, but it makes me really nervous to be "Chopping" hunks out of a system that is required to work properly and quickly so the network can work properly. It seems like a lot of effort, and there are a lot of unknowns, and potential problems that could crop up on a system that is required to be stable.

Am I just being paranoid here, or is there some merit to my worries?

 

There is little point virtualising a single server instance and running it on the same hardware it was originally working on. You are adding complication and I don't think what you'd get back would make it worth it.

A better policy would be to buy a second server and install that as a virtual hypervisor using something like VMWare's ESXi.

The first new server instance I'd put in would be one to act as a second AD server so the network isn't reliant for authentication on one server. Then strip out individual services from your original server to run in separate instances on the new server - for example an Exchange Instance and a SQL instance.

You could then look to virtualise the remaining services (for example by using a converter like the VMWare converter). Then install the hypervisor on the old hardware (temporarily hosting the image of the server on the new server or other spare hardware).

You then end up with a handful of server instances running on two hardware boxes. You can move the servers between the two boxes as loads demand.

It's definitely a viable way forward. However, to get this to work well you need a good SAN. One you can rely on. All server instances will need to access it as their OS and file systems files will need to live on the SAN. So that's not something to skimp on.

I'd recommend you get hold of a trial version of VMWare Workstation and have a play with it. That should give you a better feel of what virtualisation can do for you.

 

I totally agree with Reggie.

Especially on not running the Virtualization on the same HW, (altho with more RAM it would handle it).

Having another server for redundancy as he suggested is the way to go.

BUT! As to your statement that the Quad-core Xeon is some kind of a dog I beg to differ with you unless you are using it for Terminal services with many simultaneous connects or some other CPU intensive processes. Or your network is much larger than you indicated.

If used purely as a File Server then.....

More important is the Disk I/O hopefully SCSI or Hi speed SATA, and the backbone of the network. Is your network all Gigabit?

Mike

 

Would be nice to get a status here?!

Mike

 

Even a virtual one