We are running a VMWare server host on Ubuntu 8.04 server. The host is a Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 with 4GB ram and a single 250GB sata drive.

We backup the server twice a week by shutting down the server from the host ('vmware-cmd /vm/kaseya/WindowsServer.vmx stop' command within a bash script) copying the virtual machine files across the gig network (averages about 35MB/s) to a stand-by host configured the same way.

We opted not to purchase a "real server" for most of our infrastructure with the idea of "commoditizing" the hardware. We pick up Optiplex 755's with the above config for about $600.

I know this does not address single-disk failure issues, but we offset the cost of the "real server" by having a hot-standby host with a VM that is no older than 3 days. We can just launch that VM on the standby host and we are back in business in a few minutes.

We have experienced "symmpi" delay errors in the past during heavy load conditions, but we worked around that by hacking the registry in the Kaseya guest o/s for the LSI Logic scsi adaptor to increase the delay time and things are humming along nicely.

The K server is using a 100GB disk, 1.5GB RAM and a single processor and it runs pretty snappy. No complaints at all.

my $0.02


Dave.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: kubuntuuser

You are a brave man!

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: boudj

We used ESX for 2 years now and I say it's the best thing since sliced bread. Dell 2950 Dual quad core x64 servers work great, we average 6 to 8 server per host and it is solid. We run Kaseya, exchange and MSSQL systems with out a problem. Add the free VMware converter tool and your busting up old servers as quick and easy as a few mouse clicks.

Personally my 2 cents on Micro$oft is

Let the others use it as thats what keeps me employed. Please don't switch to Mac or Linux else I may be out of a job.. (how many engineers are needed to keep a fleet of linux boxes rolling compaired to just 1 M$ system? The same amount...)

Bless Microsoft and their horid programing ways!!


Cubert

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: Cubert

I'm running KS2008 SP1 in a Windows 2008 Hyper-V machine running W2003 x64 for about a month with no problems so far. I only have about 60 computers under management right now. Hyper-V is very nice and extremely easy to use.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: Bastionpoint

Excellent news. I never read up on Hyper-V yet, what does it cost? I held off on VMWare's ESX (I think that's what they call it) because it seemed expensive at about $1400.

Bastionpoint

I'm running KS2008 SP1 in a Windows 2008 Hyper-V machine running W2003 x64 for about a month with no problems so far. I only have about 60 computers under management right now. Hyper-V is very nice and extremely easy to use.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: ReedMikel

Hyper-v is free with the Windows 2008 X64 OS.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: boudj

Sweet I wonder if USB works with this virtual os? I seem to recall it does not with VMWare and most other VMs too. I wonder what is so difficult about USB?

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: ReedMikel

I am shopping for a new server that I will probably run 2 VMs on: SBS 2003 R2 and Kaseya. Or if I opt not to use SBS, I'll have 3 VMs: Win 2003, Exchange 2003 and Kaseya.

I currently have about 150 agents and my server is certainly underpowered, being a Dell PE 2400 (dual P3/900, 2GB RAM, 300GB RAID5 SCSI).

Growth - I'd guess no more than 500 agents over the next 2-3 years.

I am a one man shop, so the server really does not get hit hard except for Kaseya and a light Exchange load.

There are a gazillion options when I start looking at Dell and other server offerings. Can anyone suggest mid range hardware adequate to handle several VMs as described?

What hardware options will yield the most "bang for the buck"? I assume more RAM (say 8 or 16GB) will yield better performance than upgrading processor speed a few tenths of a gigahertz (e.g. 2.0 to 2.3GHz).? How about one vs two processors? Intel vs AMD? Hard drives: one reason I am able to run on such ancient Dell hardware is probably because of the RAID5 SCSI. How do the newer SAS drives compare? I think I saw that SCSI (ultra wide 320?) is still available. Is SCSI dying/dead?

My budget? The least amount that is likely to yield a solid high performance KServer/Exchange server all running as VMs on one box. I hope to come in under $2500 (excluding backup hardware). I also have a MS Action Pack subscription, so I do not need to order any operating system. I'm going to try MS Hyper-V for the VM environment, which is free for me also.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: ReedMikel

Mike, I'd say go with 2 Procs if possible, make sure you have too much ram (16GB) and that you have fast HD's (15K SCSI). Go 64 bit also for the OS (win 2K3 std 64 bit is supported by K). If you want to discuss, feel free to drop me a private message.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: boudj

I would go with a single quad core Intel processor with 10GB of RAM. I'd avoid SCSI hard drives - they're becoming a dying breed. Stick with SAS, and set the drives up in a RAID-10. Spindle speed can be offset by platter density, so 10k is OK as long as your drives are at least 146GB. You can always add a second processor and more memory later - just leave enough slots to do so.

I've been running a HP ML350 G5 with a single Xeon quad core, 4GB RAM, and 4x 146GB SAS drives in a RAID-10 for the past week. We have Kaseya (200 clients) and SBS 2003 running in ESXi (hey, our salesperson told us VMs were OK!) and the thing screams. For reference, we had a Dell PE2800 running Kaseya and SBS 2003 in VMware Server on top of Server 2003 Enterprise with 6GB RAM and (all SCSI drives)2x 73GB in RAID-1, 3x 73GB in RAID-5, and 2x 146GB in RAID-1, and it was slow. I wiped the array config and created a 6 drive RAID-10 and a 2 drive RAID-1, installed ESXi and am currently moving my KServer and SBS VMs over from the ML350. I'll let you know how it runs.

I'd also recommend ESXi over Hyper-V - I'll see if I can dig up the 3rd party performance benchmarks that put VMware on top of Microsoft by a long shot.

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: sequoya

Hey Sequoa, what does SAS stand for?

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: boudj

boudj

Hey Sequoa, what does SAS stand for?

I'm talking U320/parallel SCSI, not SAS

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: sequoya

Thanks Boudj and Sequoya! Boudj, what's your take on the future of SCSI? I, like Sequoya, thought SAS was the successor to SCSI... I have 5 Seagate 73GB 10k SCSI Ultra320 hotswap drives in my dinosaur server that are only about 18 mos old, so should still have plenty of life. So if SCSI is still alive and kicking, I would not mind being able to use these in my new server. Maybe I could purchase 2 new 146GB 15k SCSI HDDs and use them for operating system partition(s), and use the five older 10k drives for a data partition?

I wonder how identical spec drives perform under SAS vs SCSI? Probably too many other factors to come to any conclusion (e.g. drive controllers)

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: ReedMikel

I was actually referring to SAS. Basically (As far as I'm concerned) your options are Sata (serial ATA) or SAS (SCSI). right now SAS kicks ass with small raid configs (# of drives in an array). Now if you start building out SANS with a larger # of drives (say 9+) I'd look at SATA. If you really start getting large, look at fibre channel. But since I deal with mostly SMB clients, I just use SAS 99% of the time. Finally, I really like the reliability of SAS. I have 75+ active clients, and over the past 8 yrs my issues with SAS drives are very few and far between. As far as sata goes, I can almost predict yearly issues with systems that use these drives. My thoughts anyway!

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: boudj

I guess I could just keep my SCSI drives in this old Dell server and keep it for an emergency backup...

As for SATA - one caveat I recently encountered was on a client's server where I installed a Tandberg Data RDX removable hard drive system, which was connected to the Dell PowerEdge motherboard's integrated SATA-1. It performed up to the rated speed of the SATA-1 specs when the server's hard drives were a set of mirrored 40GB IDE drives (Dell RAID IDE controller). But when I recently replaced the mirrored set with a single 300GB 10k SATA-2 hard drive, the RDX backup drive's backup speed fell in half. That tells me the SATA integrated controller does not perform well with multiple devices. I have a feeling this would not happen with SAS...

Legacy Forum Name: General Discussion,
Legacy Posted By Username: ReedMikel