Virtual Servers

[task]

So, not entirely sure this in in the correct topic, but here goes...

I currently run the following;

File server - Debian - 1800Athlon, 5x320GB HDD, 1GB RAM
RDP/TS - Server 2K3 - 1.4 P4, couple of HDD and around 300MB RAM
SSH access - FreeBSD - miniITX, 1 HDD, 512MB RAM

Planned VOIP server
planned E-mail server

I also have available a 2.6 Xeon Server (single CPU with provision for 2) 1GB RAM. This could be upgraded with more RAM and possibly an extra CPU.

Now, the reason for this thread, does anyone have experience with virtualised servers? I was pondering the idea of installing a base OS of Debian on the Xeon machine and running VMware server on this, creating each of the above roles as VMs on this one box.

I can see this being a bad idea as regards redundancy issues (hardware failures etc) but it would be quite a vast space/power saving. None of these services have many users and are mostly for experimentation.

Can anyone see major downsides to this, has anyone done the same and any predicted hardware specs?

Cheers

 

[a1ex2001]

Why not just save the hastle I'm sure most of those roles could be combined onto one box, saving you the hastle of managing multiple OS's and paying the bils for all that hardware?

On the VMware side as long as you've got plenty of RAM and you don't hammer them too hard you'll get away with it. Multi-processors/cores makes a huge difference with virtual machines!

 

[Uhtred]

assuming you want to leave the exsisting server roles alone then VMware would be perfect for this. I run a mini network on my server at home, it's got 2 servers and a desktop client. Perfect for messing around in. It does run slowly as it's quite an old box.

Having used 3 vm machines on a dual core desktop i can confirm the above in that it is actually quite nippy.

 

[m_cozzy]

Dell poweredge 1600 with dual 2ghz xeons & 2gb ram. Runs windows 2003 with microsoft virtual server 2005 with redhat exterprise, isa 2004, citrix metaframe etc etc very nicely indeed thank you! The huge advantage is that you can copy the virtual image (even if its still running!) onto a network share so if the physical machine fails, just copy the image onto a new machine & start it up again.

NOTE: my work virtual server has 16gb ram, 6 x 146 SAS disks & dual cpu(not sure of the type ) and monsters 20+ virtual machines running for developers & live systems.

 

[task]

I wasn't convinced about the fileserver and other operations being sat on the same hardware. I might give it a try with all but the fileserver for a start. It'd be nice to have a virtual environment to test stuff in rather than having to install onto a desktop machine each time.