Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
I would suggest yes. Install Hyper-V 2016, and then install your VMs on top of that.
-
Who came up with this rule?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Who came up with this rule?
It's not really a rule... more of a guidline really.
But if you're going to use a server as a Hypervisor, why add all the extra overhead of a GUI attached to it and all that?
Edit: My guess would be @scottalanmiller or @JaredBusch , lol.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
-
I've created 2xRAID1 arrays ... Array1 with 2x2TB HDDs, and Array2 with 2x3TB HDDS
-
Carved-out a 64GB partition on Array1, and installed Windows 2012 r2 Std. (With GUI, as I am a Hyper-V noob. Once I'm acclimatized to Hyper-V, I'll uninstall the GUI) for the host OS.
-
Created a 300GB Partition (V:) on Array1, for the 2 VM guest operating systems. VM1 will the Domain Controller (DC) has a 100GB Dynamic VHDX, and VM2 (File and Application Server) has a 150GB Dynamic VHDX.
-
Created a 2.7 (Max available) partition on Array2, and assigned 1.5TB to a Dynamic VHDX, for all the Data. Attached this VHDX to VM2
DELETE everything here. Completely reinstall the system. Either use your two arrays or a single OBR10 if you get new drives.
Install Hyper-V server 2016 onto the smaller array, or the single array if you go that route.
Since you are new, simply disable the firewall entirely and deal with that configuration after you have the basics up.
netsh advfirewall set allprofiles state off`Since you have 2 NICs, you will team them and plug both into the switch.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/9704/nic-teaming-on-hyper-v/6#open a new powershell winddow start powershell #get the NIC names Get-NetAdapter #use said names to make a new team. New-NetLbfoTeam –Name Team1 –TeamMembers NIC1,NIC2Example after it is created:
Now connect to the server from a Windows 10 machine with the Hyper-V Manager and create your vSwitch.
Once that is done, go back to your powershell window and kill VMQ.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8358/i-hate-vmqGet-NetAdapterVmq | Disable-NetAdapterVMQNow you are ready to actually do things.
- What about provisioning for Checkpoints and VSS ? Currently, VSS is disabled on all volumes on the Host OS.
You just crippled your system.
- Shall I created a 3rd VHDX for VM2, just for VSS ? If yes, what size, and would it be fine, if I create this VHDX on Array1 ? We are happy with around 2-3 days worth of previous versions.. I don't think daily changes would be more than 1GB
I can't even understand this thought process. Likely from a lack of understanding basics. Just forget everything.
- Is one large 2TB VHDX fine for the data, or should is it recommended to break it up in smaller VHDXs
You size your drives for the workload. Each VM should have a single drive unless there is some really odd configuration needed. You are dealing with a 15 user company, there will almost certainly be no reason. They are not a snowflake.
- Is it recommended to disable checkpoints for the Domain Controller VM ? ... btw ... how does one disable checkpoint, for a particular VM ? From Integration Services ?
Why in the hell would you disable checkpoints for anything? They do not magically get created. You make them. So if you do not make them, who cares if it is enabled or disabled?
- Any special provisioning for paging ? or anything else, for that matter ?
No, you are not a snowflake.
- I'm thinking of using VEEAM Free, for back-ups.. The back-up destination would be a Synology NAS box, with a 5TB HDD. Does VSS need to enabled for backups ?
Without a paid license, Veeam cannot run scheduled backups, nor do anything but a "VeeamZip". This is not a bad thing, if you are aware of the limitations and account for them. VeeamZips can be scheduled outside of Veeam with a scheduled task running a command line statement. Veeam added this feature back in Version 8 I think.
Everything uses VSS. You have an unhealthy fascination with disabling it.
- Am I over-thinking things, and shall I just keep it real simple ?
See prior post...
I'd like to know if the above storage provisioning is fine.. Comments and suggestions, a thwack on the head (for asking these ridiculous question) , are most welcome..
The thwack is reserved for whoever told you to do this to a client system.
-
-
The point of not installing Server OS # onto the hardware for a Hypervisor has always been a guideline. And the reason being is it's wasted resources and energy.
You wouldn't install XenServer under Ubuntu.
Type 1 hypervisors exist for a reason, and it's so they can manage the hardware, and be as close to the hardware as possible for the management task.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The point of not installing Server OS # onto the hardware for a Hypervisor has always been a guideline. And the reason being is it's wasted resources and energy.
You wouldn't install XenServer under Ubuntu.
Type 1 hypervisors exist for a reason, and it's so they can manage the hardware, and be as close to the hardware as possible for the management task.
Windows Server 201x (installed on bare metal) with Hyper-V role enabled is a Type 1 hypervisor, not sure why you think it's not.
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@DustinB3403 said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The point of not installing Server OS # onto the hardware for a Hypervisor has always been a guideline. And the reason being is it's wasted resources and energy.
You wouldn't install XenServer under Ubuntu.
Type 1 hypervisors exist for a reason, and it's so they can manage the hardware, and be as close to the hardware as possible for the management task.
Windows Server 201x with Hyper-V role enabled is a Type 1 hypervisor, not sure why you think it's not.
Actually, it is a mess. It is Hyper-V + a bunch of crap in a hosed up Dom0. because it is not originally a Type 1 either. It is a Server installed directly onto the hardware, then when the Hyper-V role is implemented, the server portion is migrated to dom0.
And the real issue is, as always with Microsoft, licensing.
Hyper-V Server is freely licensed to install and nothing is tied to the install.
If you Install Server, then that license is forever tied to that hardware. Yes, you get your two VM instances,but they can never be moved because you bound them to the hardware by installing Server instead of Hyper-V Server.
Had you installed Hyper-V Server, you could spin up a new Hyper-V server, (or even XS or VMWare) and migrated them both (they do have to stay together) with no licensing ramifications. You can do this as often as every 90 days if actually needed.
-
Jared answered for me.
Thanks Jared.
-
@FATeknollogee said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Now on to your hypervisor. Do not, ever, install Microsoft Server onto the bare metal. Install Hyper-V Server. Period. End of story.
Does this "rule" also apply to Windows Server 2016 with Hyper-V role enabled?
This rule has applied to all Hyper-V installations since Hyper-V Server 2012 was released. There is no other way that Hyper-V should ever be deployed for the SMB.
The exception to the rule (and only because people can be lazy) is if every single physical system was licensed with Server 20XX DataCenter. At that point you are licensed to run anything anywhere, so who cares. Be lazy, install Server on everything if you want. I still would not, but that is up to you.
-
Hi,
Thanks to all for the suggestions, comments, feedback , especially Jared... I really appreciate the candour ..
@Dashrender , @DustinB3403 , @JaredBusch - Yes, RAID 10 would be ideal, and will certainly be done in the future .. But, for now, we'll just have to live with 2 arrays of RAID1
Currently, the size of the data is around 1.4TB (not de-dup'ed... once de-dup'ed, may reduce) ... This is what they've accumulated over a period of over 10 years ... I don't see them running out of storage space, for atleast another 8 months to a year
I was told to install 2012 R2, simply because it's a more mature OS, by virtue of it being around for longer .. Infact, I'd prefer working on 2016
I'm not a Powershell expert .. also, we do not have a SCCM licenses.. Remote management will be done from Windows 8x machines, using RDP.. .. Hence, I thought, I'd start-off with 2012 R2 Server ... Once everything on Host server is ready, I am planning on uninstalling the GUI, and downgrading to Server Core ...
On Windows 8x, we use RSAT to manage Windows 2012 Server. Can the same RSAT be used to managed 2016 Server, or Hyper-V 2016 ?
@Dashrender - I've been working remotely, via VPN, and yes, using iLO..
@JaredBusch - Yes, the client has been informed that upgrading to RAID10 later, would mean a complete FFR (which, I'm guess, won't be that big a headache, since we're virtualizing)
@JaredBusch - The reason for creating a separate VHDX just for VSS of data is https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753975(v=ws.11).aspx
Also, I haven't manually or deliberately disabled VSS on the Volume housing the VM Guest OS VHDxs ... VSS was not enabled, by default...
My main reason for installing the full server, is non-familiarity with Powershell, and lack of proper freely available GUI tools, to manage remotely ....
-
Well if you still have the option, I'd still start over and install Hyper-V 2016 as the hypervisor - the lack of concern over licensing alone makes that worth it to me (I suppose you could install Hyper-V 2012 if demanded by your boss or the client).
As you saw in JB's post, there are many things in Hyper-V that just have to be done from PowerShell, so there's no reason to shy away from it.
Yes, RSAT will control 2016, you might not be able to manage all features - I'd advice getting a Windows 10 machine to use, create an image of your current machine and see if you can still get a free upgrade - if it activates after the upgrade, you're golden, if not, simply restore your image to 8.1 then plan you purchase of Win10.
I know they told you that they don't want to spend money on two additional drives, but you should really ask them to reconsider - the management of multiple VHDx over multiple storage repositories makes your environment needlessly complex, and very prone to error.
Since you indicated that your data is only 1.4 TB now, perhaps you can just build one VM on the 2 TB array, and the other on the 3 TB array if they still won't spend for the replacement. Just remind them that their basically giving up half their IOPs by keeping these split. This affects performance.
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@Dashrender , @DustinB3403 , @JaredBusch - Yes, RAID 10 would be ideal, and will certainly be done in the future .. But, for now, we'll just have to live with 2 arrays of RAID1
Two arrays is just bad in comparison. The client can't be so incredibly tight on capital that if you told them two arrays of mismatched drives was dangerous, and they still said go ahead anyways.
The growth factor here isn't the critical item. The poor system design is.
-
The client's desire to not purchase the correct drives is one of @scottalanmiller's famous sunk cost fallacies.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
Well if you still have the option, I'd still start over and install Hyper-V 2016 as the hypervisor - the lack of concern over licensing alone makes that worth it to me (I suppose you could install Hyper-V 2012 if demanded by your boss or the client).
The following has happened, since my last post ...
-
list item We've decided to go-ahead with Windows 2016. Infact, I'm even free to use Hyper-V Server 2016. However, I'm not at all comfortable with working without a GUI.. I don't want to be in situation where I have to Google Powershell commands for even mundane things like creating VHDX files ... Plus, Remote GUI tools such as Hyper-V manager and RSAT (On Windows 8x), are cumbersome to setup, especially when the remote machine is a non-domain machine.. Plus, I'm not sure if Coreconfig works on Hyper-V Server 2016. Any suggestions on how to make remote management easier/smoother ? 5nine Free ?
-
list itemI've pushed for RAID 10, once again .. The client has reluctant agree, as long as they don't have you buy new HDDs. I explained to client that I could create a RAID 10 array, even with the existing 2x2TB HDDs, and 2x3TB HDDs, but that would mean that RAID 10 array would take into consideration the size of the smallest HDD. So, it'll be as if the array was created using 4x2TB HDDs, giving them total usable space of around 3.5 - 3.7TB. Around 1.8TB of HDDs space would be unusable, and simply go to waste, thus increasing the cost/GB for storage.. .So, now, I'll get their final decision on this, tomorrow.
-
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
I know that the storage config is rather awkward - The server is brand new, and was purchased with 2x2TB HDD. After it was delivered, the client realized that they required more storage, so they bought an additional 2x3TB HDDs... I'm guessing They opted for 7.2RPM disk, due to cost constrains..
Important to note... whoever made that buying decision is the IT decision maker here and they made the decision to do two RAID 1 arrays. Why did that person get tasked with making that decision? Who knows, that is something to look into. But they are the authority on the server and are making the "tough" technical decisions here. You are just implementing decisions that they made already.
The really big questions to look into are things like "How did they buy a server and extra storage when they didn't have the person who understands the needs involved yet?" This indicates a significant business decision making problem somewhere up the chain. This suggests you have a rogue Head of IT hidden in the organization somewhere, and it might easily be a secretary.
-
@dr.funkenstein Welcome to ML mate - I'd add something further but it sounds like you've got it all in hand. Looking forward to seeing you around!
-
@MattSpeller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@dr.funkenstein Welcome to ML mate - I'd add something further but it sounds like you've got it all in hand. Looking forward to seeing you around!
Thanks for the positive words ..
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@MattSpeller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
@dr.funkenstein Welcome to ML mate - I'd add something further but it sounds like you've got it all in hand. Looking forward to seeing you around!
Thanks for the positive words ..
-
@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:
The decision we arrived at is that, for now, they'd prefer to have storage space (Given that there are just 15 users), with the decent'ish redundancy & performance offered by RAID 1
Not sure how the number of users plays into the decision, that bit is unclear. Seems more likely that fifteen users would not generate a lot of storage, but would benefit from a faster system. But the reality is that it probably doesn't matter in either direction.
RAID 1 is not "decentish" reliability (we always care about reliability, never redundancy) it's the most reliable form of RAID, you can't get more reliable. Just important to note, there is no way to get more reliable.
