|
I'm not sure if there is another thread suited for this question, but we're looking at setting up some virtualized servers at work. We would be using and there would probably be 3 or 4 virtualized servers at the onset. Two would be running Windows Server 2008 R2 (phone server and call logging software), another would be a Fedora install running LAMP, and there may be a dedicate Oracle server running on Fedora. How I do figure out what type of server/hardware would be appropriate to run the virtual servers that I need? Ideally I'd like some sort of dual server setup for loadbalancing and some degree of redundancy, but would I want to look at blade servers or are there other options that I should consider? I am talking to NetApp today about a SAN for the VMs, but I'm a bit unsure of what direction to go with the actual server. Sorry if this is a basic question. I'm normally good with hardware, but I'm just having difficulty wrapping my head around what sort of equipment I'll need to run the 3-4 VMs that I need. Aniki fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 19, 2012 |
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:You'll definitely want 2 servers, otherwise it is kind of silly to virtualize. I would highly suggest 1u or 2u servers over blades, especially since you're not really hurting for density with only 3 VMs. Unless you are planning on a ton of growth, I think anything NetApp would offer is probably way overkill. I would look at Equallogic, specifically the PS4100. I will admit I do not know much about NetApp, though. This thread will probably be more helpful for SAN-specific advice - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2943669&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 I figured that two servers was a must. Do the two servers just need to be on the same 10GB network or do they need to be physically linked in some way? I know that the VMs and SAN would optimally be run on a seperate network from our regular corporate traffic. As for storage, I contacted NetApp, because of the Enterprise Storage thread. From talking to them, their equipment does sound impressive and is likely overkill for what we're doing, but I'm at least familiar enough with their products now that I can use them as a baseline to compare other SANs to. I'll look into Equallogic PS4100 and see how it compares to the NetApp 2040. I was looking into Dell earlier, but most of their affordable SAN units were running with RAID5 and in this kind of setup I want to be able to withstand at least two drives failing without data loss. I can at least use those applications to figure out what requirements we'll need for the database server, though I'm talking to a VMware expert on Thursday to figure out what requirements I'll need for the other servers. At least I won't need to do all the VMware setup myself, but I'm trying to catch up on this as quickly as I can and I ordered the Mastering VMware vSphere 5 book from the OP. Aniki fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Until you take into account how much better VMware is at overcommit and resource management and what that buys you in terms of how many hosts you actually need to pay for. Some of VMware's licensing packages make the cost more palatable for small to medium sized businesses, but the cost of licensing does nullify a lot of the benefits in certain situations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
I have old phone server software that I installed on a Windows 2000 Server VM using Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 R2. The software has a hardware key that plugs into a parallel port. We forwarded the port to the VM, however the VM is not recognizing the hardware key. I noticed that one workaround that people are using for USB hardware keys is to plug them into an Network-Attached USB hub. Do you think that I could get away with plugging a USB to parallel adapter into a Network-Attached USB hub or is there an easier way to get the parallel port hardware key working? I do have a parallel card in the server. Also, would running Hyper-V as an administrator make any difference? Does VMWare have better support for parallel ports? I'm not too experienced with virtual machines, so sorry if some my questions are a bit basic. Thank you in advance for any help.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
adorai posted:In my experience getting hardware licensing HASPs to work with a USB to parrallel adapter is hit or miss, but if it works with the cable, it should be trivial to use the USB to LAN hub. We do it and other than it occassionally needing to be reconnected, it's been pretty good. Ok, I'll try plugging in a USB to parallel adapter to the server and see if I can get that working tonight, though it is good to know that the USB to LAN hub likely won't make a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It can be really hit or miss whether the USB2LAN device works with your particular token though. And DR is still annoying to plan for. I think my plan is to try the USB to Parallel adapter first and if that doesn't work, then I'll consider trying VMWare (currently using Hyper-V) or ordering the USB2LAN hub. The hardware key is for Call Cener Worx v. 2.1, which was released in 2001 and can only run on Windows NT based operating systems and for some reason they stopped purchasing updates after that. I know that the USB keys they released later on were finicky and I'm not sure if the parallel key we have is supposed to be any better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Aniki posted:I think my plan is to try the USB to Parallel adapter first and if that doesn't work, then I'll consider trying VMWare (currently using Hyper-V) or ordering the USB2LAN hub. The hardware key is for Call Cener Worx v. 2.1, which was released in 2001 and can only run on Windows NT based operating systems and for some reason they stopped purchasing updates after that. I know that the USB keys they released later on were finicky and I'm not sure if the parallel key we have is supposed to be any better. Ok, I ended up using VMware instead. Their support for parallel ports is much better and I had no issues getting the hardware security key working. I should have done that in the first place, but at least it is working now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 18:56
|
|