Mixing
Are other services (like MSSQL) next HyperV on the host system a normal approach?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First of all, I'm not very experienced with HyperV, Microsoft stuff and this could be an opinionated question. Nevertheless I wonder since I've learned about the following situation, if it's really the way to go or just nonsense.
A company is about to virtualize their infrastructure. The selected company, which should implement the virtualization, plans to do that with HyperV. I've visualized their plan:
In my opinion there are a few odd things about this:
- Is it fine to have other services like SQLServer directly on the host system and not virtualized into a container?
- Is the domain controller fine with being virtualized? Can the host system be in the domain, while one of it's guest is the domain controller?
- Is it possible that they do like this, to save license coasts?
Thank you in advance.
virtualization hyper-v windows-server-2016
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First of all, I'm not very experienced with HyperV, Microsoft stuff and this could be an opinionated question. Nevertheless I wonder since I've learned about the following situation, if it's really the way to go or just nonsense.
A company is about to virtualize their infrastructure. The selected company, which should implement the virtualization, plans to do that with HyperV. I've visualized their plan:
In my opinion there are a few odd things about this:
- Is it fine to have other services like SQLServer directly on the host system and not virtualized into a container?
- Is the domain controller fine with being virtualized? Can the host system be in the domain, while one of it's guest is the domain controller?
- Is it possible that they do like this, to save license coasts?
Thank you in advance.
virtualization hyper-v windows-server-2016
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First of all, I'm not very experienced with HyperV, Microsoft stuff and this could be an opinionated question. Nevertheless I wonder since I've learned about the following situation, if it's really the way to go or just nonsense.
A company is about to virtualize their infrastructure. The selected company, which should implement the virtualization, plans to do that with HyperV. I've visualized their plan:
In my opinion there are a few odd things about this:
- Is it fine to have other services like SQLServer directly on the host system and not virtualized into a container?
- Is the domain controller fine with being virtualized? Can the host system be in the domain, while one of it's guest is the domain controller?
- Is it possible that they do like this, to save license coasts?
Thank you in advance.
virtualization hyper-v windows-server-2016
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
First of all, I'm not very experienced with HyperV, Microsoft stuff and this could be an opinionated question. Nevertheless I wonder since I've learned about the following situation, if it's really the way to go or just nonsense.
A company is about to virtualize their infrastructure. The selected company, which should implement the virtualization, plans to do that with HyperV. I've visualized their plan:
In my opinion there are a few odd things about this:
- Is it fine to have other services like SQLServer directly on the host system and not virtualized into a container?
- Is the domain controller fine with being virtualized? Can the host system be in the domain, while one of it's guest is the domain controller?
- Is it possible that they do like this, to save license coasts?
Thank you in advance.
virtualization hyper-v windows-server-2016
virtualization hyper-v windows-server-2016
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
asked 10 hours ago
Robin
454412
454412
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
No, this is not a Best Practices configuration.
Generally, a Hyper-V host should run only the minimum necessary software to be a Hyper-V host. That means the Hyper-V role, anti-virus, storage services (iSCSI, Storage Spaces, etc.), backup agents, and systems monitoring agents. No user facing services should be running on the Hyper-V host
Running a DC inside a VM is fine. With Windows 2012 R2, a domain joined Hyper-V host can successfully boot and start a VM without an available Domain Controller. Prior to 2012 R2, the Hyper-V host needed to contact a DC before it could start the VMs. However, this has specific configuration requirements. Personally, I would run a dedicated physical domain controller just for simplicity sake.
I don't have a guess as to their motivation for doing it this way. You need a minimum of 8 Standard licenses for any Windows server, and each license allows 2 VM's. So you get at least 16 VM's just by minimally licensing the Hyper-V host. There's no licensing reason to limit it to 4 VM's.
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your Hypervisor should be a Hypervisor and nothing else.
If there is an actual performance based need to keep SQL non-virtualized, then your better bet would be to get a second server to run SQL on. However, most likely if this is the entire infrastructure you can get away with virtualizing SQL, and separating the storage in Hyper-V to dedicate some to your databases so that there's nothing else on that storage competing for IO. Depending on performance requirements you may not even need to do this.
As long as you're running Hyper-V 2016, and you don't join the Hyper-V machine to the domain, there are no issues with virtualizing your DC. If you join the Hyper-V box to the domain, you may have some issues getting into the server if there is an issue with your DC VM restarting. Having a domain-joined Hyper-V host, hosting your only DC is supported with 2016, but I wouldn't do it. Regardless of what MS says these days, it's safer to keep at least one physical DC running in case there are issues with the virtual one starting that prevent you from logging into the Hyper-V box for administrative purposes.
You shouldn't put WSUS on your DC though. Domain controllers should be treated with the same specificity as hypervisors. Only run what's required on them, nothing else. In a smaller shop, running DNS/DHCP/DC on one box is very common, just isolate the DHCP service account. In a massive network, running DHCP on a separate box is a better configuration.
All of this is possible, and cheaper. With AVMA you'll simplify your activation/licensing as long as you've licensed all cores in the host. I'm assuming you're using Server 2016 Datacenter, in which case adding an additional server to do WSUS is covered by your license. Datacenter gives you unlimited virtualized environments when the whole host is licensed, so you're better to split WSUS off from your DC.
For more details on configuring DHCP see here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/stdqry/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations/
For more information on best practices regarding other apps on Hyper-V see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/uspartner_ts2team/2014/01/15/if-im-using-hyper-v-what-other-services-should-run-in-the-host-os/
For more information about AVMA see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hybridcloudbp/2016/01/29/windows-server-activation-best-practices/
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
No, this is not a Best Practices configuration.
Generally, a Hyper-V host should run only the minimum necessary software to be a Hyper-V host. That means the Hyper-V role, anti-virus, storage services (iSCSI, Storage Spaces, etc.), backup agents, and systems monitoring agents. No user facing services should be running on the Hyper-V host
Running a DC inside a VM is fine. With Windows 2012 R2, a domain joined Hyper-V host can successfully boot and start a VM without an available Domain Controller. Prior to 2012 R2, the Hyper-V host needed to contact a DC before it could start the VMs. However, this has specific configuration requirements. Personally, I would run a dedicated physical domain controller just for simplicity sake.
I don't have a guess as to their motivation for doing it this way. You need a minimum of 8 Standard licenses for any Windows server, and each license allows 2 VM's. So you get at least 16 VM's just by minimally licensing the Hyper-V host. There's no licensing reason to limit it to 4 VM's.
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
No, this is not a Best Practices configuration.
Generally, a Hyper-V host should run only the minimum necessary software to be a Hyper-V host. That means the Hyper-V role, anti-virus, storage services (iSCSI, Storage Spaces, etc.), backup agents, and systems monitoring agents. No user facing services should be running on the Hyper-V host
Running a DC inside a VM is fine. With Windows 2012 R2, a domain joined Hyper-V host can successfully boot and start a VM without an available Domain Controller. Prior to 2012 R2, the Hyper-V host needed to contact a DC before it could start the VMs. However, this has specific configuration requirements. Personally, I would run a dedicated physical domain controller just for simplicity sake.
I don't have a guess as to their motivation for doing it this way. You need a minimum of 8 Standard licenses for any Windows server, and each license allows 2 VM's. So you get at least 16 VM's just by minimally licensing the Hyper-V host. There's no licensing reason to limit it to 4 VM's.
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
No, this is not a Best Practices configuration.
Generally, a Hyper-V host should run only the minimum necessary software to be a Hyper-V host. That means the Hyper-V role, anti-virus, storage services (iSCSI, Storage Spaces, etc.), backup agents, and systems monitoring agents. No user facing services should be running on the Hyper-V host
Running a DC inside a VM is fine. With Windows 2012 R2, a domain joined Hyper-V host can successfully boot and start a VM without an available Domain Controller. Prior to 2012 R2, the Hyper-V host needed to contact a DC before it could start the VMs. However, this has specific configuration requirements. Personally, I would run a dedicated physical domain controller just for simplicity sake.
I don't have a guess as to their motivation for doing it this way. You need a minimum of 8 Standard licenses for any Windows server, and each license allows 2 VM's. So you get at least 16 VM's just by minimally licensing the Hyper-V host. There's no licensing reason to limit it to 4 VM's.
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
No, this is not a Best Practices configuration.
Generally, a Hyper-V host should run only the minimum necessary software to be a Hyper-V host. That means the Hyper-V role, anti-virus, storage services (iSCSI, Storage Spaces, etc.), backup agents, and systems monitoring agents. No user facing services should be running on the Hyper-V host
Running a DC inside a VM is fine. With Windows 2012 R2, a domain joined Hyper-V host can successfully boot and start a VM without an available Domain Controller. Prior to 2012 R2, the Hyper-V host needed to contact a DC before it could start the VMs. However, this has specific configuration requirements. Personally, I would run a dedicated physical domain controller just for simplicity sake.
I don't have a guess as to their motivation for doing it this way. You need a minimum of 8 Standard licenses for any Windows server, and each license allows 2 VM's. So you get at least 16 VM's just by minimally licensing the Hyper-V host. There's no licensing reason to limit it to 4 VM's.
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
edited 3 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
answered 10 hours ago
longneck
19.8k23774
19.8k23774
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
Thank you for your answer. Do you have some documents or links to support me, when I tell them that this is not Best Practices?
– Robin
10 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your Hypervisor should be a Hypervisor and nothing else.
If there is an actual performance based need to keep SQL non-virtualized, then your better bet would be to get a second server to run SQL on. However, most likely if this is the entire infrastructure you can get away with virtualizing SQL, and separating the storage in Hyper-V to dedicate some to your databases so that there's nothing else on that storage competing for IO. Depending on performance requirements you may not even need to do this.
As long as you're running Hyper-V 2016, and you don't join the Hyper-V machine to the domain, there are no issues with virtualizing your DC. If you join the Hyper-V box to the domain, you may have some issues getting into the server if there is an issue with your DC VM restarting. Having a domain-joined Hyper-V host, hosting your only DC is supported with 2016, but I wouldn't do it. Regardless of what MS says these days, it's safer to keep at least one physical DC running in case there are issues with the virtual one starting that prevent you from logging into the Hyper-V box for administrative purposes.
You shouldn't put WSUS on your DC though. Domain controllers should be treated with the same specificity as hypervisors. Only run what's required on them, nothing else. In a smaller shop, running DNS/DHCP/DC on one box is very common, just isolate the DHCP service account. In a massive network, running DHCP on a separate box is a better configuration.
All of this is possible, and cheaper. With AVMA you'll simplify your activation/licensing as long as you've licensed all cores in the host. I'm assuming you're using Server 2016 Datacenter, in which case adding an additional server to do WSUS is covered by your license. Datacenter gives you unlimited virtualized environments when the whole host is licensed, so you're better to split WSUS off from your DC.
For more details on configuring DHCP see here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/stdqry/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations/
For more information on best practices regarding other apps on Hyper-V see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/uspartner_ts2team/2014/01/15/if-im-using-hyper-v-what-other-services-should-run-in-the-host-os/
For more information about AVMA see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hybridcloudbp/2016/01/29/windows-server-activation-best-practices/
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your Hypervisor should be a Hypervisor and nothing else.
If there is an actual performance based need to keep SQL non-virtualized, then your better bet would be to get a second server to run SQL on. However, most likely if this is the entire infrastructure you can get away with virtualizing SQL, and separating the storage in Hyper-V to dedicate some to your databases so that there's nothing else on that storage competing for IO. Depending on performance requirements you may not even need to do this.
As long as you're running Hyper-V 2016, and you don't join the Hyper-V machine to the domain, there are no issues with virtualizing your DC. If you join the Hyper-V box to the domain, you may have some issues getting into the server if there is an issue with your DC VM restarting. Having a domain-joined Hyper-V host, hosting your only DC is supported with 2016, but I wouldn't do it. Regardless of what MS says these days, it's safer to keep at least one physical DC running in case there are issues with the virtual one starting that prevent you from logging into the Hyper-V box for administrative purposes.
You shouldn't put WSUS on your DC though. Domain controllers should be treated with the same specificity as hypervisors. Only run what's required on them, nothing else. In a smaller shop, running DNS/DHCP/DC on one box is very common, just isolate the DHCP service account. In a massive network, running DHCP on a separate box is a better configuration.
All of this is possible, and cheaper. With AVMA you'll simplify your activation/licensing as long as you've licensed all cores in the host. I'm assuming you're using Server 2016 Datacenter, in which case adding an additional server to do WSUS is covered by your license. Datacenter gives you unlimited virtualized environments when the whole host is licensed, so you're better to split WSUS off from your DC.
For more details on configuring DHCP see here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/stdqry/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations/
For more information on best practices regarding other apps on Hyper-V see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/uspartner_ts2team/2014/01/15/if-im-using-hyper-v-what-other-services-should-run-in-the-host-os/
For more information about AVMA see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hybridcloudbp/2016/01/29/windows-server-activation-best-practices/
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Your Hypervisor should be a Hypervisor and nothing else.
If there is an actual performance based need to keep SQL non-virtualized, then your better bet would be to get a second server to run SQL on. However, most likely if this is the entire infrastructure you can get away with virtualizing SQL, and separating the storage in Hyper-V to dedicate some to your databases so that there's nothing else on that storage competing for IO. Depending on performance requirements you may not even need to do this.
As long as you're running Hyper-V 2016, and you don't join the Hyper-V machine to the domain, there are no issues with virtualizing your DC. If you join the Hyper-V box to the domain, you may have some issues getting into the server if there is an issue with your DC VM restarting. Having a domain-joined Hyper-V host, hosting your only DC is supported with 2016, but I wouldn't do it. Regardless of what MS says these days, it's safer to keep at least one physical DC running in case there are issues with the virtual one starting that prevent you from logging into the Hyper-V box for administrative purposes.
You shouldn't put WSUS on your DC though. Domain controllers should be treated with the same specificity as hypervisors. Only run what's required on them, nothing else. In a smaller shop, running DNS/DHCP/DC on one box is very common, just isolate the DHCP service account. In a massive network, running DHCP on a separate box is a better configuration.
All of this is possible, and cheaper. With AVMA you'll simplify your activation/licensing as long as you've licensed all cores in the host. I'm assuming you're using Server 2016 Datacenter, in which case adding an additional server to do WSUS is covered by your license. Datacenter gives you unlimited virtualized environments when the whole host is licensed, so you're better to split WSUS off from your DC.
For more details on configuring DHCP see here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/stdqry/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations/
For more information on best practices regarding other apps on Hyper-V see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/uspartner_ts2team/2014/01/15/if-im-using-hyper-v-what-other-services-should-run-in-the-host-os/
For more information about AVMA see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hybridcloudbp/2016/01/29/windows-server-activation-best-practices/
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
Your Hypervisor should be a Hypervisor and nothing else.
If there is an actual performance based need to keep SQL non-virtualized, then your better bet would be to get a second server to run SQL on. However, most likely if this is the entire infrastructure you can get away with virtualizing SQL, and separating the storage in Hyper-V to dedicate some to your databases so that there's nothing else on that storage competing for IO. Depending on performance requirements you may not even need to do this.
As long as you're running Hyper-V 2016, and you don't join the Hyper-V machine to the domain, there are no issues with virtualizing your DC. If you join the Hyper-V box to the domain, you may have some issues getting into the server if there is an issue with your DC VM restarting. Having a domain-joined Hyper-V host, hosting your only DC is supported with 2016, but I wouldn't do it. Regardless of what MS says these days, it's safer to keep at least one physical DC running in case there are issues with the virtual one starting that prevent you from logging into the Hyper-V box for administrative purposes.
You shouldn't put WSUS on your DC though. Domain controllers should be treated with the same specificity as hypervisors. Only run what's required on them, nothing else. In a smaller shop, running DNS/DHCP/DC on one box is very common, just isolate the DHCP service account. In a massive network, running DHCP on a separate box is a better configuration.
All of this is possible, and cheaper. With AVMA you'll simplify your activation/licensing as long as you've licensed all cores in the host. I'm assuming you're using Server 2016 Datacenter, in which case adding an additional server to do WSUS is covered by your license. Datacenter gives you unlimited virtualized environments when the whole host is licensed, so you're better to split WSUS off from your DC.
For more details on configuring DHCP see here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/stdqry/2012/04/03/dhcp-server-in-dcs-and-dns-registrations/
For more information on best practices regarding other apps on Hyper-V see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/uspartner_ts2team/2014/01/15/if-im-using-hyper-v-what-other-services-should-run-in-the-host-os/
For more information about AVMA see here:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hybridcloudbp/2016/01/29/windows-server-activation-best-practices/
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
answered 10 hours ago
RobbieCrash
637519
637519
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f934907%2fare-other-services-like-mssql-next-hyperv-on-the-host-system-a-normal-approach%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
