Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?
-
I have a client who is eliminating their Windows license cost and setting up a Linux VM on a Dell R510. The host will be running Hyper-V 2012 R2 (not Windows with Hyper-V role) and looking to setup a large file server for their team of 4. The Linux VM will simply be a Samba file server and serve no other function. Expected size for the VM is around 30TB+. I'm used to setting up web servers and small file servers where I don't manually adjust partition sizes or setup anything special at OS install but wondering if there are any caveats I should know about when going this large.
Are there any best practices you would recommend? Should I setup 2 different virtual disks (1 for OS and 1 to mount for data) or just a single disk? Do I need to manually adjust partition sizes during install? Any special considerations to keep in mind knowing that I may need to expand the data storage down the road? I may be over-complicating this in my head but I'm of the "measure twice and cut once" mindset, especially when I can ask a group of experts.
In case some of you want to know, there is no Active Directory (Workgroup environment), all Windows PCs, Veeam B&R for backup. Anything else you want to know, just ask.
[Edit] For spelling error in thread title.
-
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
Are there any best practices you would recommend? Should I setup 2 different virtual disks (1 for OS and 1 to mount for data) or just a single disk?
Yes, that way the HV has more control to do different things with different data types.
-
Not a tonne to know. A large Samba VM will act just like any other. At some point getting an Exablox is practical to allow for simple growth as it becomes "too much" of your hypervisor environment to make sense to be combined in. But 30TB is not all that big.
-
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
-
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
Definitely no NTFS on Linux. Getting away from NTFS is one of the benefits. You want XFS for a normal large data partition.
-
So I have a couple of questions - You're getting rid of Windows Licensing, but not Windows in general? Why use Hyper-V instead of XenServer? Is it because you're using Veeam?
Why a server instead of a NAS?
-
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
Am I correct in my understanding, from the hypervisor perspective, the VM storage partition will be NTFS, but the VM will be formatted something Linux friendly?
-
@Dashrender said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
Am I correct in my understanding, from the hypervisor perspective, the VM storage partition will be NTFS, but the VM will be formatted something Linux friendly?
Hyper-V uses ReFS or NTFS, if that is what you are asking.
-
And the filesystem of the hypervisor has no relationship to the filesystems of the VMs. VMware uses VMFS, but the VMs are unaffected.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@Dashrender said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
Am I correct in my understanding, from the hypervisor perspective, the VM storage partition will be NTFS, but the VM will be formatted something Linux friendly?
Hyper-V uses ReFS or NTFS, if that is what you are asking.
yes, it is. So depending on how @NashBrydges looks at it, he'll see one filesystem or another.
-
@Dashrender said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
So I have a couple of questions - You're getting rid of Windows Licensing, but not Windows in general? Why use Hyper-V instead of XenServer? Is it because you're using Veeam?
Why a server instead of a NAS?
They're a Windows shop. They use Windows on their desktops and that's not going away. They already have Veeam so didn't make sense to move them away from something they already knew well and worked well. They already have 2 Synology NAS. One is used for local backup which is then copied over to a remote NAS at the owner's home. They also already have the R510 which is a perfect solution for their large storage needs and also supports a few other VMs.
-
@Dashrender said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@Dashrender said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for this. So is it fair to say you'd also recommend formatting the data partition accordingly (ie: NTFS vs. Ext4)?
Am I correct in my understanding, from the hypervisor perspective, the VM storage partition will be NTFS, but the VM will be formatted something Linux friendly?
Hyper-V uses ReFS or NTFS, if that is what you are asking.
yes, it is. So depending on how @NashBrydges looks at it, he'll see one filesystem or another.
Correct. Accessing the Hyper-V host I'll see the native file system. And the VM performs the file server function is what the users will be presented with
-
So does the host file system (NTFS) not manage the partition the VM file system is on (XFS)? Is that why @scottalanmiller is saying to separate the two? i'm a little confused how the two interact or if they interact directly/indirectly.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
So does the host file system (NTFS) not manage the partition the VM file system is on (XFS)? Is that why @scottalanmiller is saying to separate the two? i'm a little confused how the two interact or if they interact directly/indirectly.
From what Scott is suggesting, I would create 2 VHDX. One where I'll install Linux. The other to actually hold the data. This second VHDX will be mounted to the Linux VM from within the VM and formatted from within the VM. The host will create the VHDX container and the VM will format the container and mount the container for presentation to the users. Because the 2 VHDXs have different functions (one is to run the vistual machine OS and the other just to hold data), keeping them separate appears to present some advantages for their individual intended purpose.
The host will simply set aside the "data blocks" and the VM OS will format them.
-
@NashBrydges said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
@wirestyle22 said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
So does the host file system (NTFS) not manage the partition the VM file system is on (XFS)? Is that why @scottalanmiller is saying to separate the two? i'm a little confused how the two interact or if they interact directly/indirectly.
From what Scott is suggesting, I would create 2 VHDX. One where I'll install Linux. The other to actually hold the data. This second VHDX will be mounted to the Linux VM from within the VM and formatted from within the VM. The host will create the VHDX container and the VM will format the container and mount the container for presentation to the users. Because the 2 VHDXs have different functions (one is to run the vistual machine OS and the other just to hold data), keeping them separate appears to present some advantages for their individual intended purpose.
The host will simply set aside the "data blocks" and the VM OS will format them.
Thanks
-
@wirestyle22 said in Large Linux Samba Server On Hyper-V 2012 R2 - Caveats? Best Practices?:
So does the host file system (NTFS) not manage the partition the VM file system is on (XFS)? Is that why @scottalanmiller is saying to separate the two? i'm a little confused how the two interact or if they interact directly/indirectly.
The VM's storage is just files. Literally each individual file system in the VM is a file on NTFS or ReFS. So from Hyper-V we see a series of files. To the VM they are normal disks.
