Microsoft Virtualisation User Group UK

Hi,

I have been trying to drive forward the concept of virtualisation in my organisation for some time now. We currently have no virtualised workloads in production. I use it for testing. We're crying out for it in production, but I want to do it right and properly. I've setup a demo lab of a virtualised Exchange 2007 server running on Hyper-V with a software iSCSI target. This works nicely and brings appreciative oohs and aahs when it is demo'd.

Nevertheless, moving this to production is a whole different propostion. When I talk to third party suppliers in the virtualisation space theying quickly default to talk about VMWare (the pound signs pop up infront of their eyes), the mention of Hyper-V usually brings an awkward silence or sharp glances between pre-sales consultants. VMotion they mutter, Quick Migration I retort, dowtime they say, Live Migration with R2 I respond...and so it goes on, and the discussion resembles a Windows v Linux debate of old when all I really want to know is how I go about coming up with a sensible plan for virtualising my infrastructure with a solution that doesn't entail spending money on software I don't need.

So, who can I talk to about virtualising with Hyper-V and understanding the real storage requirements without getting entangled with entrenched VMWare partners who want to sell me VMWare as well as a costly SAN (justifying that to the business is a whole different proposition too)? Where are the detailed technical guides for setting up such an environment in production?

What has been you experience with this? Have people got Hyper-V into production at any scale yet?

Regards,

Richard

Richard,

What storage solutions do you have in-place in production that you can leverage (as this would be my first consideration).

If a new storage solution is required then you need to take into account the required IOPS for the workloads that you planning to run. iSCSI works nicely for a SMB production solution and there are a number of vendors that provide iSCSI disk arrays. My advice would be to NOT use the iSCSI initiator within the Guest partition but to present the storage to the Root/Parent partition and then use Pass-Through disks.

I have personally worked on a project just recently that commissioned Exchange 2007 SP1 on top of Hyper-V as part of a production POC (Mailbox, Hub/Transport & CAS roles). We leveraged the existing storage architecture (NetApp FAS 3140). Below are some storage options, features and usage scenarios to help you start your planning:

Storage options, features and usage scenarios

(a) Works as legacy IDE but will perform better if Integration Components are present.

(b) Works as legacy network but will perform better if Integration Components are present.

(c) Hyper-V maximum VHD size is 2040 GB (8 GB short of 2 TB).

(d) Not limited by Hyper-V. NTFS maximum volume size is 256 TB.

(e) Microsoft iSCSI Software Target maximum VHD size is 16 TB.

(f) Requires SAN reconfiguration or NPIV support.

(g) For data volumes only (cannot be used for boot/system disks).

(h) Requires SAN reconfiguration or NPIV support.  All VHDs on the same LUN must be moved together.

(i) Requires third-party product like WinBoot/i from EmBoot.

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your reply.

We do have a SAN in production, but this is spec'd specifically for an AIX box, not something I want to touch. So at the moment everything in production is DAS. Built into trying to sell server virtualisation I also have to try to sell the concept of storage consolidation. We need this anyway, but I can only justify things by demonstrating a cost saving which is erm, challenging, to demonstrate when you're talking about the cost of a SAN. :) We have around 100 servers in the UK and about 2000 users across Europe. The organisation grows by acquisition, so the scalability and flexibility this would offer us is in line with the corporate strategy. 

I have to admit its quite frustrating, I am very excited about this whole area, but its proving very difficult to move forward with this at the moment in my current organisation. From a technical standpoint its a no-brainer, but selling this to the business even at a conceptual level is difficult.

Anyway, you say that  "My advice would be to NOT use the iSCSI initiator within the Guest partition but to present the storage to the Root/Parent partition and then use Pass-Through disks." Why is this?

Thanks,

Richard

Richard,

Your biggest issue sounds like the business case and I wish you the best of luck. Have you considered running an assessment with MAP to help you build your case http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb977556.aspx? Anyway to answer your question - iSCSI initiator in the Guest partition is the slower of the two options. You are much better off presenting the storage in the Root/Parent partition.

Regards

Patrick

Again, sorry for waking up an old thread...but did you make any progress with this Richard?

I think that since your post here, there has been further guidance released from Microsoft about this subject :

Should You Virtualize Exchange 2007 SP1? : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd535371.aspx

Does your environment fit into one of these scenarios?

Also a good read is The Support Policy and Recommendations : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc794548.aspx

Regards,

Alastair.

Hi,

I have made progress yes.  I've used Hyper-V to virtualise the domain controllers in two of our domains (following the best practice for this), we needed to replace several boxes which were DC's so I've used this opportunity to get some server virtualisation into the production environment. There already seems to have been a shift in perception by members of the IT department because now every physical server that has an issue has suddenly become a candidate for virtualisation, despite only having two DL380's running Hyper-V in the datacenter.... This enthusiasm is undeniably a good thing, and the virtualised estate probably will grow organically rather than as part of a defined project this year, but I am having to reign it in a little as we won't be getting a new SAN this year and will only have limited hardware spend on new boxes to do this.

Hoepfully next year we should be able to make progress on getting a SAN and properly scope a project to virtualise roles such as Exchange and SQL etc. and to this end I've started speaking to a consultancy who should be able to assist with this.

Thanks for the links, I'll have a read through them.

Thanks,

Richard