Solved Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.
-
@Tim_G said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@Dashrender said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
The cost of purchasing and maintaining a second server is so rarely worth it.
See! That's the thing, I never implied purchasing a whole server and Windows license and setting up everything having to do with it from scratch... JUST to have a second Active Directory instance.
Yes you have.
@Tim_G said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
First, you don't want to replicate DC's. Have two DC's, both virtualized, on different physical servers, non-replicated.
-
@Tim_G The OP specifically stated they have a single Physical server doing AD + file shares.
There is not currently anything else, but he was looking at a second server for redundancy. Some gave various other opinions, I gave my opinion.
-
@Tim_G said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@Dashrender said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
The cost of purchasing and maintaining a second server is so rarely worth it.
See! That's the thing, I never implied purchasing a whole server and Windows license and setting up everything having to do with it from scratch... JUST to have a second Active Directory instance.
Perhaps not (I'd have to re-read the whole thread, tl;dwra), but you're clearly on the side that says if the option allows, definitely have two DCs. And most of use are saying that that's crazy.
You mention your customers - I wonder, do you not think any of your customers will ever get to the point where the power in a single server will hold their entire company?
I have 90 users, I only need one server and a few VMs. My situation should be
VM host
.....AD (DNS, DHCP)
.....File server
.....backup server
.....WSUS (if I even really need this anymore - my bandwidth is high enough I probably don't)I don't need a second server for failover of my fileserver.
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
Exactly - as mentioned - a good backup might be all that you need. Though you should image your current server and install a hypervisor under it.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@Tim_G The OP specifically stated they have a single Physical server doing AD + file shares.
There is not currently anything else, but he was looking at a second server for redundancy. Some gave various other opinions, I gave my opinion.
I just went back and re-read everything. I feel like an idiot now. Yes you are right there's only one physical server running Windows that is doing AD and file services.
But in my defense, all that talk of replication, HA, clustering, failover, Veeam replica, Starwind, vSAN, etc... I was under the impression that we were talking about an already established environment and infrastructure with existing multiple hypervisors. Because my line of thought was why all that, for just a single server running one instance of Windows, unless there's already an existing establishment that makes talk of all that worth it.
Honestly, with his current "single server setup"... there's no way I would recommend going out and buying more servers and Windows licenses just to set up another DC. That's just crazy.
-
I get most of my experience from SMBs with multi-sites over slow WANs... sometimes fast WANs, but still not fast enough to be considered the same site. Most of my cases are instances consisting of servers at each site, or an RODC if it's small enough and without necessary security. I couldn't make due with only one DC in almost all of my "normal SMB" experiences.
Though, I can imagine a small shop of only one hypervisor that hosts everything it needs, and can get by without multiple DCs. In that case backups couldn't be any more valuable. If I walked in to a place like that, I would definitely never suggest purchasing a second hypervisor to make AD "HA".
I think I was going down a different path than everyone else.
I also believe that it comes down to the needs of the business and other factors. I just hate seeing things like "ALL" or "MOST SMBs"... blanket statements and the like. Because if I see that, then that means you or whoever is referring to all or most of my cases, too. And if it isn't true for me, I think it needs to be corrected.
-
@Tim_G said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@Tim_G The OP specifically stated they have a single Physical server doing AD + file shares.
There is not currently anything else, but he was looking at a second server for redundancy. Some gave various other opinions, I gave my opinion.
I just went back and re-read everything. I feel like an idiot now. Yes you are right there's only one physical server running Windows that is doing AD and file services.
But in my defense, all that talk of replication, HA, clustering, failover, Veeam replica, Starwind, vSAN, etc... I was under the impression that we were talking about an already established environment and infrastructure with existing multiple hypervisors. Because my line of thought was why all that, for just a single server running one instance of Windows, unless there's already an existing establishment that makes talk of all that worth it.
Honestly, with his current "single server setup"... there's no way I would recommend going out and buying more servers and Windows licenses just to set up another DC. That's just crazy.
Gotcha, that makes more sense then
-
@Tim_G said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
I get most of my experience from SMBs with multi-sites over slow WANs... sometimes fast WANs, but still not fast enough to be considered the same site. Most of my cases are instances consisting of servers at each site, or an RODC if it's small enough and without necessary security. I couldn't make due with only one DC in almost all of my "normal SMB" experiences.
Before we killed off AD, we spent a long time doing single server AD over WAN. AD was hosted on Azure (bad idea, but only because it was Azure) and it worked great.
-
I had 4 external locations, now only 2 with VPN links between them. The main office was on a 10/10 internet connection. We only had one AD DC at the main office, had no need for a DC at the remote branches.
Printing was all kept local at the branch, no print server, just direct IP Printing. There was very little need for files from the main site, so this worked well for 8 years.
I can definitely understand needing a local server if you had a lot of local file usage, but AD shouldn't have been needed to be provided onsite.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Honestly, IMO, from what little we know of the OP's environment, he does not need replication either. Just a single server and a backup.
I see.
Actually I have inquired with our management people about the "acceptable downtime for server", they said "one day" is okay. Here according to management (aka user) is meant for File Server and as you know, they are not aware of what DC, DNS etc. are.
Most of our production work depends on File Server, and based on above info. acceptable downtime for File Server will one day.
And for any hardware failure, the repair service will be next working day. The vendor from whom we have warranty tie up are working 5 days a week and we are working 6 days a week. If any failure happens at last working day on the week and spare part is not available immediately with them, we may consider around "3 days downtime for server to come up"
And you know, how the situation of IT guyz in this process.
"So I am thinking of Server Redundancy, for company benefit" and of course "to have piece of mind for myself
" -
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
I believe, Yes.
For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of Mind -
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
I believe, Yes.
For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of MindThought to clarify few things :
- Yes, currently we have one physical server. Second server, Veeam (or whatever) needs to purchase for this replication process.
- About users, we have 110+ who depends on File Server.
- Even if it's expensive, I just wanted to propose to my management, it's different thing, if they don't accept it. At least, I will not get blamed for long downtime (if it happens), because I proposed, they didn't accepted it, so their problem
-
By the way, I was not aware that Microsoft server license for second server is required.
So, following will be new expenses, if I plan :
- New server (for second one)
- Veeam (or any software)
- Microsoft server license
Am I correct ?
Of course, my time to learn, test and implement
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
I believe, Yes.
For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of MindThat's never how you should look at it.
For business: Whatever makes the money
IT: Whatever is good for the business -
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
For Management : Minimized Downtime
Minimizing downtime is not a business goal. Making the most money, is. If minimizing downtime loses the company money, IT has failed at its job.
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
- Even if it's expensive, I just wanted to propose to my management, it's different thing, if they don't accept it. At least, I will not get blamed for long downtime (if it happens), because I proposed, they didn't accepted it, so their problem
You should only propose it if you have run the financial numbers and know if it is a good idea for the business or not. That's IT's job, to figure out which way is better for the business.
- Even if it's expensive, I just wanted to propose to my management, it's different thing, if they don't accept it. At least, I will not get blamed for long downtime (if it happens), because I proposed, they didn't accepted it, so their problem
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Honestly, IMO, from what little we know of the OP's environment, he does not need replication either. Just a single server and a backup.
I see.
Actually I have inquired with our management people about the "acceptable downtime for server", they said "one day" is okay. Here according to management (aka user) is meant for File Server and as you know, they are not aware of what DC, DNS etc. are.
Most of our production work depends on File Server, and based on above info. acceptable downtime for File Server will one day.
And for any hardware failure, the repair service will be next working day. The vendor from whom we have warranty tie up are working 5 days a week and we are working 6 days a week. If any failure happens at last working day on the week and spare part is not available immediately with them, we may consider around "3 days downtime for server to come up"
And you know, how the situation of IT guyz in this process.
"So I am thinking of Server Redundancy, for company benefit" and of course "to have piece of mind for myself
"Do you need the server itself to be up though? In your situation if I was going to have extended outage, I'd grab a PC with enough storage and install Hyper-v and then restore my data to that. Or look at a better warranty, like 4/6 hour response. That would be less expensive than a whole other server and one less box to worry about, that much less power usage, that much less worry about licensing, etc.
-
Assuming your current server license is 2008 or newer, you get two VMs on one host.
With your current setup it sounds like you are using and services on a single install of Windows server, so you can move that to a VM, then create a second VM on that same host, install Veeam to it. I'd purchase a 2/4 drive NAS for the backup target.
You could do this all on your current server assuming is has enough resources (CPU, RAM, storage). Then purchase Veeam essentials ($850ish), NAS and drives ($1000ish).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.
I believe, Yes.
For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of MindThat's never how you should look at it.
For business: Whatever makes the money
IT: Whatever is good for the businessMaybe I was wrong at "For IT: Peace of Mind"
As I said, our end-users depends a lot on File Server. If File Server is not available, they can't do their work almost (lets say 70%). So if they don't do work for long, their projects will get delayed, and for sure it will effect production.
