Spec for a VM server

Uhtred · 1 Apr 2011 at 11:53

You really don't need much. Just had my standard dual core rig, 4GB of RAM and 1TB drive and virtual box. Only struggled with the exchange module (another 2GB of RAM would have been nice)

elrasho · 1 Apr 2011 at 19:13

Decided to build a new rig instead, I value my main rig too much for me to start messing around with ESXi/VMs and other stuff. Gonna get the parts that I listed in my first post.

m4cc45 · 1 Apr 2011 at 21:21

Zap said:
You really don't need much. Just had my standard dual core rig, 4GB of RAM and 1TB drive and virtual box. Only struggled with the exchange module (another 2GB of RAM would have been nice)

That may run one VM. Unless you have an absolute beast of a PC / Server then you don't want to run an Hypervisor on top of an OS. The OS will get most of the resources (say you're running XP there's at least 1GB RAM gone).

I agree you don't need to go over board but having a dedicated machine for this would be the best idea. ESXi or Hyper-V would be the best solution. I'd definitely invest in more in RAM as this is the first thing that will run out. Depending on how fast you want those servers to run I'd say 2GB for the server and 1GB for the clients. I'd aim for 6 to 8GB if your budget can stretch to it.

M.

elrasho · 1 Apr 2011 at 21:30

Yep gone for a dedicated machine instead

The AMD Athlon II X3 450 and 4GB of ram for now, if I need more I'll buy some later on as I cant really afford it right now.

I've been trying to find some information on Hyper-V with AMD CPUs but there's hardly anything on the web, wanted to see how it compares to Intel CPUs

beast_gts · 1 Apr 2011 at 21:48

I've used Hyper-V on nearly identical Opteron / Xeon machines (2x Dual-Core 2.4GHz, 16 GB RAM) and didn't notice a difference.

elrasho · 1 Apr 2011 at 21:53

Im going down the Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V route. I have a 1TB hard drive so Im thinking splitting the partitions like this:

C:\ 200GB for WinServer2008R2
D:\ 200GB for VM Clients
E:\ 600GB for VM Servers

This should be OK right?

beast_gts · 1 Apr 2011 at 23:13

Are you planning on running Hyper-V ON Server 2008 or 'Hyper-V Server 2008'?

elrasho · 1 Apr 2011 at 23:16

Erm... Im not sure now lol I though Hyper-V was like and Add-On for Win Server 2008?

beast_gts · 1 Apr 2011 at 23:21

From Wikipedia:

Hyper-V exists in two variants: as a stand-alone product called Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008, and as an installable role in Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Server 2008

Biggest difference is you cannot run other roles on a Hyper-V Server.

elrasho · 1 Apr 2011 at 23:22

I don't know what you mean by "roles"

beast_gts · 1 Apr 2011 at 23:28

What are the server roles in Windows Server 2008?

Trojan · 2 Apr 2011 at 08:04

Go for a either a standard or enterprise install of Windows 2008 R2 SP1 and then install Hyper-V as a role. By doing this you get the option to add your Hyper-V server to the domain and carry out some physical only tasks such as testing bitlocker.

Roles by the way are simply tick boxes within server manager that install additional content onto the server. DHCP, AD Certificate Services and RDS are all roles for example.

elrasho said:
Im going down the Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V route. I have a 1TB hard drive so Im thinking splitting the partitions like this:

C:\ 200GB for WinServer2008R2
D:\ 200GB for VM Clients
E:\ 600GB for VM Servers

This should be OK right?

You don't need a 200GB partition for the OS install. You'll find 100GB more than you'll ever need. The VM partitions really depends on what you're planning on running.

SoundsGood · 2 Apr 2011 at 09:48

too slow ~_~

elrasho · 2 Apr 2011 at 18:23

Just finished building and installing WinServer2008R2 as I type this. Gonna run through all the Windows Updates then install Hyper-V and get cracking with 70-640 Windows Server 2008 Active Directory, Configuring

SoundsGood · 2 Apr 2011 at 18:27

Good luck. I'm also doing 70-640