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:
@NerdyDad said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Yeah, I agree with Jared. It could be done with minimal costs for Hyper-v 2016 and Veeam B&R. Cost of the hardware, your labor, the licenses for the guests, and for Veeam.
How many hosts are you planning on having?
This isn't a question I'm asking directly as there are extenuating circumstances. (read into that)
I would say no more than a single server should be used for each client, virtualize all of the things and implement a solid backup plan.
Hyper-V + Veeam, seriously. Cannot be beat for simplicity (once running) in an AD environment.
-
@JaredBusch 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:
@NerdyDad said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Yeah, I agree with Jared. It could be done with minimal costs for Hyper-v 2016 and Veeam B&R. Cost of the hardware, your labor, the licenses for the guests, and for Veeam.
How many hosts are you planning on having?
This isn't a question I'm asking directly as there are extenuating circumstances. (read into that)
I would say no more than a single server should be used for each client, virtualize all of the things and implement a solid backup plan.
Hyper-V + Veeam, seriously. Cannot be beat for simplicity (once running) in an AD environment.
My only warning there, because I see this a lot, is that often shops like this will do this using exactly that logic (because it makes sense) but they overlook the "lock in" factor. And then a year or two or ten down the line they get asked "Why do we have AD" and suddenly the answer becomes "Because it makes Hyper-V easier" and it turns out that they had no other reason to keep it. Adding a dependency of this nature is a form of technical debt, a dependence on the AD that isn't necessary.
If you knew, for certain, that AD would never go away if you didn't have Hyper-V, then this is moot. But in the real world, we never know this for certain and AD is rarely needed. Many shops will never really entertain removing it, but many would if they weren't encumbered with a bunch of lock in that make it difficult to remove.
So there is almost always a cost here, even if the cost doesn't strike today or even this year. It's not without overhead.
-
@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 servicesMakes it more of a AD dependency for the reason of Security Permission of a File Server (Unless they go the nextcloud/linux samba shares route). Terminal Server is also something really annoying and cumbersome to manage without AD.
I wonder, what is the dependency without AD, what service will you be using for user management? Samba? IDaas? Local Users? because that is painful to manage well without a centralized Authentication system.
-
@dbeato said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Makes it more of a AD dependency for the reason of Security Permission of a File Server (Unless they go the nextcloud/linux samba shares route). Terminal Server is also something really annoying and cumbersome to manage without AD.
Of course it is, if you're using Microsoft's or Citrix's versions. Not having set either of those up, I have no idea if they are any easier or harder than the methods I'm familiar with.
-
@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.
-
Yeah Microsoft has been heavy on getting things to be more integrated on their platform. It creates more vendor lock-in. For years you could easily just pull out a single piece provided by MS and there wouldn't be much of an issue.
-
@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.
-
@JaredBusch said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
If they are an AD environment, it is hard to beat just using Hyper-V Server + Veeam.
This is what I just did, for all the same reasons.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
