|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Why Virtualize?
|
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM, JP Vossen <jp@jpsdomain.org> wrote:
> But here's the real biggie, that IMO this group has thus far missed.
> Lots/many/most Windows applications [very] strongly recommend/require a
> dedicated server. IME that's very rare on Unix/Linux, but it's nearly
> universal on Windows (again IME). Sure the really basic stuff will
> coexist, like F&P, DNS, DHCP. Then again, with AD, how many people put
> services on whatever they call the domain controller now? So you've got
> a big hairy box dedicated to--authentication... Plus the backup DCs...
>
> Anyone who works in a big Windows shop chime in (we promise not to bite.
> Too much. :).
That would be me, I guess. :-)
But my DCs are certainly not on "big hairy hardware", even with 1200
users. They do run DHCP and DNS, as well. But no F&P, or anything
else. You're right, that would be silly. :-)
All my other services - db, app, web servers, other - are on their own
individual boxes. The dbs are almost all clustered, too. The web
servers are all load balanced. We're a PeopleSoft shop.
At my old place (60 users) I had a DC in a VM. Works wonders for D/R -
restore the image; force ably seize the FSMO roles; and now now you
have your AD structure back. That *alone* is worth the price of
admission. :-) With the AD back, all your users are there, and your
Exchange extensions, etc.
> But that's what I've seen, you've got a ton of Windows
> boxes each only doing one thing, because otherwise Windows is even less
> stable or reliable, and the services (daemons) can step on each other
> because Windows architecture (really development policy and practice,
> but...) sucks.
My boxes are amazingly stable. The only failures I've seen in the 10
months I've been at my place have been hardware failures, of old
hardware. For 85 Windows servers, I rarely have any go down
unexpectedly.
> * And related, ever try to move a Windows hard drive from one physical
> machine to another after an MB or PSU failure? Don't. It really,
> really sucks, unless the machines are near identical (I can provide
> painful details if needed).
If they are identical, it works well. Just did it last week, moving a
3 drive raid from one box to another (unused) box, with the exact same
hardware and RAID controller.
Otherwise, BOY, are you right ....
>Virtualization removes that limit, which to
> me is worth it all by itself, esp. if the host is stable OS and free.
> Add the points above and it's a no brainer.
+1
> Except... If you app is very CPU or disk intensive, think again. For
> example, I personally wouldn't run an heavy-duty Oracle server in a VM.
Ditto Exchange (which is a db, really, since all mail stores in a db.
Or MS SQL server. Altho I have seen posts from guys on my Win Admin
lists who say they are doing it just fine ...
> Having said all of this, my admin and design experience in the Windows
> world is thankfully getting very dated. I was a consultant and MCSE in
> the 90's but have been only an end-user on Windows at work for the last
> 6+ years. So if I'm wrong and you dare to admit you work on Windows
> <g>, please correct me.
Yeah, I don't do religious OS stuff all that well, so sure, I'll admit
it. No, I'm not ashamed. I like what I do. In fact, these days, I
don't use Linux nearly as much as I used to.
--
Michael J. Leone
<mailto:turgon@mike-leone.com>
PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
Photo Gallery: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeleonephotos>
Life is a tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think,
and a cereal for those who are hungry ...
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|