CPU for running virtual server

[Luke]

I have been looking to upgrade from my a64 3400 (newcastle) for a while now, just as I feel it is getting a bit long in the tooth. I had been looking at the budget end of the market - specifically the e6300.

My needs, however, have changed recently, and I need to run some virtual servers on my main rig.

With this in mind, what could be considered the most appropriate upgrade? is the e6300 still a decent option for this purpose, or would I be better looking at an alternative.

To give some more info, I'd like to be running up to 4 or 5 server 2003R2 VM's if at all possible.

My existing kit is DDR ram and AGP graphics, so I'd like to avoid having to change it all at once. Like many, I was considering the asrock VSTA as a halfway house until I could afford the new memory and gfx card.

Advice would be appreciated, as mny budget hasn't changed despite my requirements having done so.

 

[Snapshot]

I've been doing something similar recently and RAM is the main constraint on how many VMs you can run. I'd really recommend 4GB and a 64-bit OS to use it properly for your requirements and 4GB is more than the VSTA supports. You do need to start from scratch with DDR2 RAM and PCIe graphics. RAM prices are falling quickly at the moment and 4GB of OcUK PC2-6400 will only cost £140. I was using an E6300 and it coped very well with one W2003 and a couple of XP Pros but an upgrade to an E6600 is quite affordable and the performance difference at stock speeds is obvious.

 

[WJA96]

The quad-core Xeons would be ideal if you can stretch to that.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

My Virtual server has the same processor as yours currently. I have 3GB ram and running VMWARE Virtual Server on 64 Bit Centos 5. Hard disk 500GB and currently have 12 guests. I have no speed issues. You should consider going VMWARE running on a 64bit linux platform.

 

[NathanE]

Make sure the CPU has Virtualisation hardware acceleration... it makes a very big difference!

 

[i_dingsdale]

If you want to do virtualisation properly then look at vmware ESX. You'll spend a fair bit on the software, but you wont need the hardcore hardware.
I've seen a single xeon 2.8/1gb/10k scsi Proliant booting 2003 in about 3 seconds flat before - ESX is an incredibly intelligent bit of software, does some very clever things with memory.

 

[Vai]

If you want to do virtualisation properly then look at vmware ESX. You'll spend a fair bit on the software, but you wont need the hardcore hardware.
I've seen a single xeon 2.8/1gb/10k scsi Proliant booting 2003 in about 3 seconds flat before - ESX is an incredibly intelligent bit of software, does some very clever things with memory.

Not exactly true, from what I hear you have to plan your hardware, as it is very picky about what type of RAID controllers and network cards it will work with as it is designed for real servers, not home boxes.

I am going to be upgrading my home server late this year, early next year. I plan to run ~10 virtual servers in total. If you can wait that long then Microsoft should be releasing Viridian which is their response to ESX. Longhorn server has some tweaks which is supposed to make it work very well with it, and I would expect it will be available on MSDN like most of Microsoft's other products.

As far as the CPU goes, I can't say how much of a difference a CPU with virtualization support helps, but based on my experience using VMware workstation on a AMD X2 I would seriously look at a quad core if I were running more than 3-4 virtual machines at any one time if you want both the host and guest operating system to run quickly.

 

[Arthalen]

Interesting subject, one that I'm also investingating.

At rpesent, I have my PC running w2003 and 2 XP sessions, and has been said memory is the limiting factor here.

Using Virtual Server 2005 R2 at present.

With 2GB, I can have my virtual sessions runng at 320MB each and still have plenty left over that I have Titan Quest running without a problem

I am seriously tempted by Quad core and 4GB though in order to run 6-7 virtual sessions at once!

 

[i_dingsdale]

Not exactly true, from what I hear you have to plan your hardware, as it is very picky about what type of RAID controllers and network cards it will work with as it is designed for real servers, not home boxes.

I am going to be upgrading my home server late this year, early next year. I plan to run ~10 virtual servers in total. If you can wait that long then Microsoft should be releasing Viridian which is their response to ESX. Longhorn server has some tweaks which is supposed to make it work very well with it, and I would expect it will be available on MSDN like most of Microsoft's other products.

As far as the CPU goes, I can't say how much of a difference a CPU with virtualization support helps, but based on my experience using VMware workstation on a AMD X2 I would seriously look at a quad core if I were running more than 3-4 virtual machines at any one time if you want both the host and guest operating system to run quickly.

True, hardware compatibility is an issue, so you wouldn't really have much chance of building something yourself. I'm just speaking from a corporate viewpoint, where we have spare servers.

The "bare metal" virtualisation systems will always be a lot quicker than the windows based ones, but obviously there are compromises