Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016
-
@DustinB3403 Xenserver is my primary experience.
I used Virtual Server 2003 and 2008 Hyper-V and it was always terrible 10 years ago. I have used Hyper-V but not really in the last few years, and I have read that it really has hit its stride.
The storage access always was ridiculously slow, so I am just left with the feeling of not trusting virtualized storage on Microsoft. There is only about 700GB of file storage data.
-
@scottalanmiller I assumed it was something we didn't need, but wanted to ask just in case there was a "gotcha".
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@DustinB3403 Xenserver is my primary experience.
I used Virtual Server 2003 and 2008 Hyper-V and it was always terrible 10 years ago. I have used Hyper-V but not really in the last few years, and I have read that it really has hit its stride.
The storage access always was ridiculously slow, so I am just left with the feeling of not trusting virtualized storage on Microsoft. There is only about 700GB of file storage data.
The storage being slow is dependent on what kind of storage is being used, and how it's configured.
Glad you're used to XS, we have some pretty avid users of XS here on ML.
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
I used Virtual Server 2003 and 2008 Hyper-V and it was always terrible 10 years ago. I have used Hyper-V but not really in the last few years, and I have read that it really has hit its stride.
Virtual Server 2005 refugee myself here. At least it was better than VMware Server 2.0! Damn that sucked.
Hyper-V really hit it out of the ballpark with 2012 R2. Today it is a very mature, robust competitor.
-
As @DustinB3403 says, loads of Xen and XenServer users here in the ML community.
-
@DustinB3403 I was going to use Hyper-V for the experiece and to leave this place on that platform when I move on later this year hopefully to a better place. Resumes out every where.
On premium storage Virtual Server would still be 10x slow than bare metal 10 years ago. It was at a time when direct i/o to storage was just starting to come out I think. This hardware is somewhat embarrassing. I will have to get and post the specs. Couldnt have been $2,000 at the time.
-
@scottalanmiller That was right as my job changed and I didn't work directly on server projects. It just left a terrible taste in my mouse. I use Xen for everything in home lab and otherwise use hosted VPS.
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
On premium storage Virtual Server would still be 10x slow than bare metal 10 years ago.
Type 2 virtualization remains a dog today, you have Windows, which is slow itself, between the metal and the hypervisor. So two layers, instead of one, and each layer slower than the single one. So the effects, even today, are still pronounced.
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@scottalanmiller That was right as my job changed and I didn't work directly on server projects. It just left a terrible taste in my mouse. I use Xen for everything in home lab and otherwise use hosted VPS.
Hyper-V and Xen have the same fundamental design. Neither is related to the Virtual Servers or VMware Servers of the past.
-
@scottalanmiller well that's encouraging. Thats what I have picked up from reading.
What's the best way to get file storage into a new VM? Can it directly access live storage or is it still some kind of VHD file?
I will have the OS drive array run Hyper-V and storage 2 servers to stay under the licensing limit. Server A will be DC and a file share. Or perhaps A is the DC, B is the file server a C is the Exchange server.
Is it common practice to virtualize the file storage in a VHD file or just access that array directly from the guest OS?
-
@magroover VHD has a 2TB limit where as VHDX has a 60TB(?) limit. Something like that. Just ran into that at home.
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@scottalanmiller well that's encouraging. Thats what I have picked up from reading.
What's the best way to get file storage into a new VM? Can it directly access live storage or is it still some kind of VHD file?
I will have the OS drive array run Hyper-V and storage 2 servers to stay under the licensing limit. Server A will be DC and a file share. Or perhaps A is the DC, B is the file server a C is the Exchange server.
Is it common practice to virtualize the file storage in a VHD file or just access that array directly from the guest OS?
You could setup the DC to be a file server, generally you wouldn't want to.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@scottalanmiller well that's encouraging. Thats what I have picked up from reading.
What's the best way to get file storage into a new VM? Can it directly access live storage or is it still some kind of VHD file?
I will have the OS drive array run Hyper-V and storage 2 servers to stay under the licensing limit. Server A will be DC and a file share. Or perhaps A is the DC, B is the file server a C is the Exchange server.
Is it common practice to virtualize the file storage in a VHD file or just access that array directly from the guest OS?
You could setup the DC to be a file server, generally you wouldn't want to.
100% this. I have about 4 DC's that are also file servers. It is beyond annoying.
-
@DustinB3403 would be the first time I had to do that short of Small Business Server. Also the first time I would have just 1 DC. Then again; 20 users. This is pretty ridiculous but I guess it will give me something to do here. I cleared up all their other issues quickly and mostly sit here applying for other jobs. Ha!
-
If I had my approach, I'd likely use a RedHat as the fileserver (or CentOS), and leave the Exchange services for just that. For the domain functions, use RH or CentOS, maybe Zentyal or some other flavor like that.
-
@magroover Since you stated that you were directed, I assume there is no keeping Office 365? Because it is only $4/user/month for Exchange Online. If you are going to be purchasing a SPAM servicve for $1/user/month, that brings the difference to only $3/user/month.
To install Exchange, you will have to setup AD last I knew. So you will have to deal with a DC and Exchange Server.
You will need to buy Server 2016 Standard, Exchange Server 2016, 28 Server 2016 User CALS, and 28 Exchange 2016 User CALS.
That is going to add up fast.
Then you have to buy a backup solution.
Was the math shown to the business? Or was this some abstract technical discussion?
-
@DustinB3403 I've been thinking about investing more time in using CentOS as a premise-based server. I am not whether there are more opportunities for sysadmin or for app development, which has been my more recent role. Managing the actual LOB apps used and customizing, doing reports.
-
@JaredBusch said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
Was the math shown to the business? Or was this some abstract technical discussion?
@JaredBusch I know this last bit was rhetorical.....
-
@JaredBusch I had all of that firepower ready in our meeting yesterday. We have some gold old boys here that never wanted to be in "that cloud". They also wanted to clamp down on the use of Dropbox.
Office 365's backend has come a long way and from a compliance standpoint I can't really imagine using anything else i.e G Suite, because what else is left?
-
@magroover said in Moving from Exchange Online Plan 1 to In House Exchange 2016:
@JaredBusch I had all of that firepower ready in our meeting yesterday. We have some gold old boys here that never wanted to be in "that cloud". They also wanted to clamp down on the use of Dropbox.
Office 365's backend has come a long way and from a compliance standpoint I can't really imagine using anything else i.e G Suite, because what else is left?
There are a lot of email supplier options, but few that have the same features of Exchange (or O365). This is one such item I'd really try and push back against.
If you're already hosted, you're in about as good of a position as you can be.
(This kind of reminds me of GitLab opting to bring services in house)
