What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@dbeato said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of my clients have an on-site data server
All have an AD server
All have a webserver of some type.
A few have terminal servicesThe fact that
Most of my clients have an on-site data server
A few have terminal servicesTerminal Server is also something really annoying and cumbersome to manage without AD.
Microsoft keeps intertwining RDS and AD. Trying to manage RDS without AD is as bad as Hyper-V without AD.
Yes, we keep deploying isolated AD just for RDS to make it act as local.
What do you mean by "isolated?" Little lost on the meaning here.
AD that touches literally nothing else besides Hyper-V for the purposes of managing Hyper-V.
Oh ok. Got it.
Yeah, so if we had RDS + Hyper-V, we'd use two different domains. Basically making AD into a local password system. It's both AD and local, in that case.
Of course, doing that for Hyper-V is pretty silly. Doing it for RDS has proven kind of practical.
So if a user had a reason to be in both domains, you would just make the domain trusts correct? (I don't exact term here)
-
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@pmoncho said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@dbeato said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of my clients have an on-site data server
All have an AD server
All have a webserver of some type.
A few have terminal servicesThe fact that
Most of my clients have an on-site data server
A few have terminal servicesTerminal Server is also something really annoying and cumbersome to manage without AD.
Microsoft keeps intertwining RDS and AD. Trying to manage RDS without AD is as bad as Hyper-V without AD.
Yes, we keep deploying isolated AD just for RDS to make it act as local.
What do you mean by "isolated?" Little lost on the meaning here.
AD that touches literally nothing else besides Hyper-V for the purposes of managing Hyper-V.
Oh ok. Got it.
Yeah, so if we had RDS + Hyper-V, we'd use two different domains. Basically making AD into a local password system. It's both AD and local, in that case.
Of course, doing that for Hyper-V is pretty silly. Doing it for RDS has proven kind of practical.
So if a user had a reason to be in both domains, you would just make the domain trusts correct? (I don't exact term here)
I'd rarely bother. The only people who need to be in Hyper-V domains are admins. I wouldn't want their creds crossing over nine times out of ten anyway. So if I needed that, I'd almost prefer that they be completely separate anyway.
This is mostly because Hyper-V and RDS are so dramatically different use cases. But it works out.
And in the real world, we never see crossover between these two. We also don't bother with AD for Hyper-V
But we do for RDS and do exactly this. -
If you already have Windows on the hardware, it's been paid for, Hyper-V makes sense, especially since it grants you additional virtualized licenses. I used Altaro free for backups, it did the job just fine.
Of course if you are not stuck on Windows, there's KVM available, which will give you more features and flexibility.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
If you already have Windows on the hardware, it's been paid for, Hyper-V makes sense, especially since it grants you additional virtualized licenses. I used Altaro free for backups, it did the job just fine.
Of course if you are not stuck on Windows, there's KVM available, which will give you more features and flexibility.
So the issue with "Windows on the hardware" is that is it creates licensing restrictions that make moving your VM's around difficult among other issues.
So Windows should never be on the hardware. Just install Hyper-V and create your VM's with your licensing.
The benefit of "added licensing" is universal, regardless of what hypervisor you use. With Server Standard X you always get the right to create 2 Virtual Machines. Always.
So there is really no benefit to doing what you've proposed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
So the issue with "Windows on the hardware" is that is it creates licensing restrictions that make moving your VM's around difficult among other issues.
So Windows should never be on the hardware. Just install Hyper-V and create your VM's with your licensing.
The question here is about SMBs, where you don't always have a say in what they've got, you simply have to deal with the existing stuff, under a very tight budget. If you have the option to plan and do things right, then of course there's plenty of best practice out there to follow.
And for Hyper-V to be an option, you do need Windows on the hardware. There is no such thing as "baremetal hypervisor" - every hypervisor needs an OS to be able to work, even if it's a small stripped down OS like the Xen kernel.
The benefit of "added licensing" is universal, regardless of what hypervisor you use. With Server Standard X you always get the right to create 2 Virtual Machines. Always.
Last time I checked with an MS licensing specialist, that was the case for the DC edition, and even then MS weren't too happy to activate your machines unless you also got a site license, a VLK or a select-6 pack. For SMBs, even if you do technically have the option to activate windows servers on non-MS virtual hardware, the procedure of doing that will hurt.
My information is a bit dated though, they might have improved things since 2010-2012-ish.
If you have the option to actually do things right and you are able to activate your windows vms without problems, KVM is a great choice, especially since if you have to scale, you can deploy oVirt
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
The question here is about SMBs, where you don't always have a say in what they've got, you simply have to deal with the existing stuff, under a very tight budget. If you have the option to plan and do things right, then of course there's plenty of best practice out there to follow.
What does this have to do with doing things in a correct fashion if you're starting new? FFS
And for Hyper-V to be an option, you do need Windows on the hardware. There is no such thing as "baremetal hypervisor" - every hypervisor needs an OS to be able to work, even if it's a small stripped down OS like the Xen kernel.
No you don't. FFS Hyper-V is 100% free. Just login and download it. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
Last time I checked with an MS licensing specialist, that was the case for the DC edition, and even then MS weren't too happy to activate your machines unless you also got a site license, a VLK or a select-6 pack. For SMBs, even if you do technically have the option to activate windows servers on non-MS virtual hardware, the procedure of doing that will hurt.
My information is a bit dated though, they might have improved things since 2010-2012-ish.
If you have the option to actually do things right and you are able to activate your windows vms without problems, KVM is a great choice, especially since if you have to scale, you can deploy oVirt
Server Standard Licensing has at least for as long as I can remember given you the right to install twice on the same hardware with-which the license is activated. Datacenter isn't Standard.
Your information is just wrong.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Your information is just wrong.
Totally, @dyasny your whole post made my head hurt.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
So the issue with "Windows on the hardware" is that is it creates licensing restrictions that make moving your VM's around difficult among other issues.
So Windows should never be on the hardware. Just install Hyper-V and create your VM's with your licensing.
The question here is about SMBs, where you don't always have a say in what they've got, you simply have to deal with the existing stuff, under a very tight budget. If you have the option to plan and do things right, then of course there's plenty of best practice out there to follow.
And for Hyper-V to be an option, you do need Windows on the hardware. There is no such thing as "baremetal hypervisor" - every hypervisor needs an OS to be able to work, even if it's a small stripped down OS like the Xen kernel.
The benefit of "added licensing" is universal, regardless of what hypervisor you use. With Server Standard X you always get the right to create 2 Virtual Machines. Always.
Last time I checked with an MS licensing specialist, that was the case for the DC edition, and even then MS weren't too happy to activate your machines unless you also got a site license, a VLK or a select-6 pack. For SMBs, even if you do technically have the option to activate windows servers on non-MS virtual hardware, the procedure of doing that will hurt.
My information is a bit dated though, they might have improved things since 2010-2012-ish.
If you have the option to actually do things right and you are able to activate your windows vms without problems, KVM is a great choice, especially since if you have to scale, you can deploy oVirt
all of this is basically wrong.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
What does this have to do with doing things in a correct fashion if you're starting new? FFS
Are you always starting from scratch?
No you don't. FFS Hyper-V is 100% free. Just login and download it. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
FFS, at least take care to post a working link.
Server Standard Licensing has at least for as long as I can remember given you the right to install twice on the same hardware with-which the license is activated. Datacenter isn't Standard.
Your information is just wrong.
Then that is something I'll be giving my MS contact shit for.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
What does this have to do with doing things in a correct fashion if you're starting new? FFS
Are you always starting from scratch?
No you don't. FFS Hyper-V is 100% free. Just login and download it. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
FFS, at least take care to post a working link.
Server Standard Licensing has at least for as long as I can remember given you the right to install twice on the same hardware with-which the license is activated. Datacenter isn't Standard.
Your information is just wrong.
Then that is something I'll be giving my MS contact shit for.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
The question here is about SMBs, where you don't always have a say in what they've got, you simply have to deal with the existing stuff, under a very tight budget. If you have the option to plan and do things right, then of course there's plenty of best practice out there to follow.
I think that is more greenfield vs. brownfield. Even in the SMB you can normally fix things when in charge, and whoever is in charge is who the guidance is aimed at.
SMBs had to make the decisions incorrectly in the first place. We'd have the same issue in the enterprise if we made the same assumptions - that someone else is making the decisions and made them and we are just supporting what they put in place. Which is true everywhere. But the implied point of the thread is what to do when you are in the position of making the decisions, if that makes sense.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@DustinB3403 said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
What does this have to do with doing things in a correct fashion if you're starting new? FFS
Are you always starting from scratch?
The conversation is about starting from scratch.
No you don't. FFS Hyper-V is 100% free. Just login and download it. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2016
FFS, at least take care to post a working link.
Works just fine for me
Server Standard Licensing has at least for as long as I can remember given you the right to install twice on the same hardware with-which the license is activated. Datacenter isn't Standard.
Your information is just wrong.
Then that is something I'll be giving my MS contact shit for.
Rarely do the sales f***s know the difference and oversell you because they can make more money.
-
@scottalanmiller I've had the misfortune of doing SMB work for quite a few years, and it's always been "just fix this now" and "we've no budget for that, we're an accounting firm and not an IT shop". So when I see SMB mentioned, I go into power saving mode
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
And for Hyper-V to be an option, you do need Windows on the hardware. There is no such thing as "baremetal hypervisor" - every hypervisor needs an OS to be able to work, even if it's a small stripped down OS like the Xen kernel.
This is incorrect. Type 1 hypervisors never (by definition) have an OS under them, that's a Type 2 (VirtualBox, for example.) The Xen kernel is a hypervisor kernel, not an OS in any way.
Hyper-V needs Windows in some fashion to work, but it is not a product called Windows and is absolutely not on the bare metal. The Hyper-V hypervisor is what sits on the bare metal, always. There is no way to have Hyper-V on top of any OS, not even Windows.
Xen, KVM, ESXi, Hyper-V... they are all bare metal hypervisors, all of them have their hypervisor kernel touching the bare metal. Xen and Hyper-V use a special VM with an OS in it to handle some functions, but that's in a VM, not on the bare metal.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I've had the misfortune of doing SMB work for quite a few years, and it's always been "just fix this now" and "we've no budget for that, we're an accounting firm and not an IT shop". So when I see SMB mentioned, I go into power saving mode
That's generally true, but you are looking at it from a partial perspective when you look at it that way. The question and/or advice would have been for the person designing the environment. Not for someone "just fixing something." At some point that SMB had all of the same opportunity and need to do things well, and therefore needed the advice and will need it again sometime.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I've had the misfortune of doing SMB work for quite a few years, and it's always been "just fix this now" and "we've no budget for that, we're an accounting firm and not an IT shop". So when I see SMB mentioned, I go into power saving mode
both hyper-v and KVM fit the no budget budget.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Last time I checked with an MS licensing specialist, that was the case for the DC edition, and even then MS weren't too happy to activate your machines unless you also got a site license, a VLK or a select-6 pack. For SMBs, even if you do technically have the option to activate windows servers on non-MS virtual hardware, the procedure of doing that will hurt.
My information is a bit dated though, they might have improved things since 2010-2012-ish.
If you have the option to actually do things right and you are able to activate your windows vms without problems, KVM is a great choice, especially since if you have to scale, you can deploy oVirt
It's dead simple and universal now. Everyone with Windows does this, essentially. I've not seen a deployment not taking advantage of all the extra standard licenses in a decade. It's "just how Windows is", now. You get two VMs for every Standard license you buy, and that's how all capacity planning is done.
-
@Donahue said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I've had the misfortune of doing SMB work for quite a few years, and it's always been "just fix this now" and "we've no budget for that, we're an accounting firm and not an IT shop". So when I see SMB mentioned, I go into power saving mode
both hyper-v and KVM fit the no budget budget.
And the Xen family, too.
-
@scottalanmiller Actually, what you say is both correct and incorrect. A hypervisor is simply the driver for the VT/SVM CPU extensions, nothing else. In that sense, it does work with the hardware directly, obviously. But it does not work in a vacuum - a driver is only part of a set of drivers of which a kernel consists. The kernel also contains other software like schedulers, and with a bit of utilities added, you get a barebones OS. It might be extremely stripped down, but it is still an OS.
Having said that, when people say "hypervisor" they mean a means of getting a VM to run, that usually means the drivers, a kernel to utilize the drivers, a set of utilities to manage the VM and emulate virtual hardware. So really, there is no "baremetal", unless you have a box that doesn't even boot up
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller Actually, what you say is both correct and incorrect. A hypervisor is simply the driver for the VT/SVM CPU extensions, nothing else. In that sense, it does work with the hardware directly, obviously. But it does not work in a vacuum - a driver is only part of a set of drivers of which a kernel consists. The kernel also contains other software like schedulers, and with a bit of utilities added, you get a barebones OS. It might be extremely stripped down, but it is still an OS.
Not an OS. An OS has a definition, and true hypervisors don't meet it. It's like an OS, yes. But it's different. KVM/Linux is unique in that depending on configuration it can be either or both.
But remember, Linux isn't an OS, it's not enough on its own. It's only a kernel. It's a kernel meant for an OS, but that doesn't make it an OS.
But Xen, Hyper-V, and ESXi don't contain kernels even meant for an OS.
A hypervisor is never a driver. To be a hypervisor, you must be a kernel. If it is only a driver, it's not a hypervisor. Or not a type 1, at least.
A type 2 hypervisor has a driver, but must be more than a driver to be the hypervisor.
