Migrate and/or replace old cert server?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
First let me say that I know nothing about certificate services, IIS or SQL (all three of which are currently configured and running on this server).
Why are those together? That's not generally a best practice. I realize that Windows licensing causes some decisions that would otherwise be poor, but this seems an odd combination.
I'm betting it's mainly because the company didn't want to buy 2-3 physical servers. If they would have gone virtualized back then, they might be on different OSEs.
Right.... so assuming one bad decision leading to another.
I know you've been using virtualization since the day VMWare rolled out their first internal only beta (yes I'm kidding), but I don't feel that the SMB really started using virtualization until 2010 or later. It's likely whoever setup this server was unfamiliar with virtualization and they were working with what they knew.
I guess you could say that the bad decision was that the business had a one man/very small IT internal staff. If they had a good MSP or consulting business partner, they might have have gone another route.
The ONLY "virtualization" infrastructure that was in place when I got here was a Hyper-V console (on the same server that I referenced in my original post in this thread; the server that also has SharePoint! This server used to also be a print server and a file server on top of everything else I've already mentioned).
I deployed the VMware infrastructure about a year or so after I started working here.
Assuming that the servers were commodity and post 2005, that means that someone was slacking. Why was Hyper-V console installed but nothing else? That's weird. Did you ever figure out why?
It wasn't "Hyper-V and nothing else". It was a "DC, SharePoint, File Server, Cert Server, AND a Hyper-V host"!
That's not what he means - he means, why was the console for Hyper-V installed and VMs not created - OR - ARE there VMs and Sharepoint is running in a VM? etc...
Nope, SharePoint is running natively in the host OS (not in a VM inside the Hyper-V host which was also installed/running on this server in the past)
Wait, this statement doesn't make sense. There is no "host" with virtualization. EIther it is on the Hyper-V machine or it is not. Everything on a Hyper-V machine is a VM.
Sorry if I confused things. I meant that this server had the Hyper-V role installed, and they had three guest VMs running inside that virtual infrastructure (meaning, it wasn't a dedicated host like an ESXi host is).
-
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
So have you removed all VMs from this host?
Yes, long ago. I did away with the print server completely, the media server was rebuilt from scratch as a VMware guest in our ESXi infrastructure and I did a V2V of the accounting server and migrated it also over to our ESXi environment.
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
First let me say that I know nothing about certificate services, IIS or SQL (all three of which are currently configured and running on this server).
Why are those together? That's not generally a best practice. I realize that Windows licensing causes some decisions that would otherwise be poor, but this seems an odd combination.
I'm betting it's mainly because the company didn't want to buy 2-3 physical servers. If they would have gone virtualized back then, they might be on different OSEs.
Right.... so assuming one bad decision leading to another.
I know you've been using virtualization since the day VMWare rolled out their first internal only beta (yes I'm kidding), but I don't feel that the SMB really started using virtualization until 2010 or later. It's likely whoever setup this server was unfamiliar with virtualization and they were working with what they knew.
I guess you could say that the bad decision was that the business had a one man/very small IT internal staff. If they had a good MSP or consulting business partner, they might have have gone another route.
The ONLY "virtualization" infrastructure that was in place when I got here was a Hyper-V console (on the same server that I referenced in my original post in this thread; the server that also has SharePoint! This server used to also be a print server and a file server on top of everything else I've already mentioned).
I deployed the VMware infrastructure about a year or so after I started working here.
Assuming that the servers were commodity and post 2005, that means that someone was slacking. Why was Hyper-V console installed but nothing else? That's weird. Did you ever figure out why?
It wasn't "Hyper-V and nothing else". It was a "DC, SharePoint, File Server, Cert Server, AND a Hyper-V host"!
That's not what he means - he means, why was the console for Hyper-V installed and VMs not created - OR - ARE there VMs and Sharepoint is running in a VM? etc...
Nope, SharePoint is running natively in the host OS (not in a VM inside the Hyper-V host which was also installed/running on this server in the past)
Wait, this statement doesn't make sense. There is no "host" with virtualization. EIther it is on the Hyper-V machine or it is not. Everything on a Hyper-V machine is a VM.
Sorry if I confused things. I meant that this server had the Hyper-V role installed, and they had three guest VMs running inside that virtual infrastructure (meaning, it wasn't a dedicated host like an ESXi host is).
That additional "host" is a VM. It's exactly how VMware was until recently. But it is another VM that requires all the same licensing as any other VM (except in very specific cases where it is completely useless.) In both cases, it should not exist.
-
I think that you had four guest VMs from the description. Just one was being perceived as the host, even though it was a VM like the others.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
First let me say that I know nothing about certificate services, IIS or SQL (all three of which are currently configured and running on this server).
Why are those together? That's not generally a best practice. I realize that Windows licensing causes some decisions that would otherwise be poor, but this seems an odd combination.
I'm betting it's mainly because the company didn't want to buy 2-3 physical servers. If they would have gone virtualized back then, they might be on different OSEs.
Right.... so assuming one bad decision leading to another.
I know you've been using virtualization since the day VMWare rolled out their first internal only beta (yes I'm kidding), but I don't feel that the SMB really started using virtualization until 2010 or later. It's likely whoever setup this server was unfamiliar with virtualization and they were working with what they knew.
I guess you could say that the bad decision was that the business had a one man/very small IT internal staff. If they had a good MSP or consulting business partner, they might have have gone another route.
The ONLY "virtualization" infrastructure that was in place when I got here was a Hyper-V console (on the same server that I referenced in my original post in this thread; the server that also has SharePoint! This server used to also be a print server and a file server on top of everything else I've already mentioned).
I deployed the VMware infrastructure about a year or so after I started working here.
Assuming that the servers were commodity and post 2005, that means that someone was slacking. Why was Hyper-V console installed but nothing else? That's weird. Did you ever figure out why?
It wasn't "Hyper-V and nothing else". It was a "DC, SharePoint, File Server, Cert Server, AND a Hyper-V host"!
That's not what he means - he means, why was the console for Hyper-V installed and VMs not created - OR - ARE there VMs and Sharepoint is running in a VM? etc...
Nope, SharePoint is running natively in the host OS (not in a VM inside the Hyper-V host which was also installed/running on this server in the past)
Wait, this statement doesn't make sense. There is no "host" with virtualization. EIther it is on the Hyper-V machine or it is not. Everything on a Hyper-V machine is a VM.
Sorry if I confused things. I meant that this server had the Hyper-V role installed, and they had three guest VMs running inside that virtual infrastructure (meaning, it wasn't a dedicated host like an ESXi host is).
That additional "host" is a VM. It's exactly how VMware was until recently. But it is another VM that requires all the same licensing as any other VM (except in very specific cases where it is completely useless.) In both cases, it should not exist.
I'm getting more confused now... you lost me on that last comment Scott :-S (others: please feel free to chime in on Scott's comment to help alleviate the confusion if possible)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
I think that you had four guest VMs from the description. Just one was being perceived as the host, even though it was a VM like the others.
I'll try to layout how this main server was setup:
-A single ProLiant DL360 G6 with 24GB of RAM and a 1TB raid array (4 drives, 7200rpm SATA; yeah, major lame sauce!). I'll refer to this server as the "primary server"; it's the main physical box that everything is "hosted" on/in
-The server has Windows Server 2008 R2 installed and promoted it to a domain controller
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
-They built three VMs inside this Hyper-V console
-They installed SharePoint in the primary server (not as a VM) and they configured it so that staff could access it from outside the network
-They installed the Cert Services roles in the primary server and configured it to talk with a separate physical server that acted as the radius hostDoes this help?
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't. When you install Hyper-V role, Hyper-V is installed Under that current install, making that install the first VM on the platform. This is typically referred to as Dom0.
This new VM is generally only supposed to be used to mange all additional VMs you add to the host. But you can choose to ignore that and install whatever other services, AD, Sharepoint, etc into it. If you do, you just need to make sure you include the correct licensing for it.
Now you mentioned three other VMs. So assuming you had two Windows Server licenses assigned to this box, you were covered since each license allows for two OSEs.
-
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
-
See my updated previous post.
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
First let me say that I know nothing about certificate services, IIS or SQL (all three of which are currently configured and running on this server).
Why are those together? That's not generally a best practice. I realize that Windows licensing causes some decisions that would otherwise be poor, but this seems an odd combination.
I'm betting it's mainly because the company didn't want to buy 2-3 physical servers. If they would have gone virtualized back then, they might be on different OSEs.
Right.... so assuming one bad decision leading to another.
I know you've been using virtualization since the day VMWare rolled out their first internal only beta (yes I'm kidding), but I don't feel that the SMB really started using virtualization until 2010 or later. It's likely whoever setup this server was unfamiliar with virtualization and they were working with what they knew.
I guess you could say that the bad decision was that the business had a one man/very small IT internal staff. If they had a good MSP or consulting business partner, they might have have gone another route.
The ONLY "virtualization" infrastructure that was in place when I got here was a Hyper-V console (on the same server that I referenced in my original post in this thread; the server that also has SharePoint! This server used to also be a print server and a file server on top of everything else I've already mentioned).
I deployed the VMware infrastructure about a year or so after I started working here.
Assuming that the servers were commodity and post 2005, that means that someone was slacking. Why was Hyper-V console installed but nothing else? That's weird. Did you ever figure out why?
It wasn't "Hyper-V and nothing else". It was a "DC, SharePoint, File Server, Cert Server, AND a Hyper-V host"!
That's not what he means - he means, why was the console for Hyper-V installed and VMs not created - OR - ARE there VMs and Sharepoint is running in a VM? etc...
Nope, SharePoint is running natively in the host OS (not in a VM inside the Hyper-V host which was also installed/running on this server in the past)
Wait, this statement doesn't make sense. There is no "host" with virtualization. EIther it is on the Hyper-V machine or it is not. Everything on a Hyper-V machine is a VM.
Sorry if I confused things. I meant that this server had the Hyper-V role installed, and they had three guest VMs running inside that virtual infrastructure (meaning, it wasn't a dedicated host like an ESXi host is).
That additional "host" is a VM. It's exactly how VMware was until recently. But it is another VM that requires all the same licensing as any other VM (except in very specific cases where it is completely useless.) In both cases, it should not exist.
I'm getting more confused now... you lost me on that last comment Scott :-S (others: please feel free to chime in on Scott's comment to help alleviate the confusion if possible)
Hyper-V has no host, only VMs. Hyper-V goes on the bare metal like VMware does. Hyper-V CAN in some cases (but never should) have what is called the "physical VM", the dumbest name ever for something virtual, that CAN be used to do some management of the Hyper-V system... but should never be used for that. Many people confuse this with not being a VM, but it is a VM. Once you have Hyper-V, that's the only thing that there can be on the bare metal. Everything you can interact with is a VM.
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
Right. Hyper-V is a Type 1 with KVM, Xen and ESXi.
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
That's incorrect. There is one and only one thing called Hyper-V and it is only a Type 1 hypervisor. This is why you are getting confused when I keep describing why there is no host, because there is truly no host. YOu are assuming that there is an OS on the bare metal, which there is not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
Right. Hyper-V is a Type 1 with KVM, Xen and ESXi.
Microsoft confuses people through the method that you use to get to the Type 1 from a standard installed Windows Server, i.e. installing the Hyper-V service. This isn't just installing a service like installing FTP or IIS. It in fact creates a shim under the current OS that is the Hyper-V OS running directly on the hardware, with the previous Windows Server OS now being the first VM.
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
https://mangolassi.it/topic/5272/somethings-you-need-to-know-about-hyperv
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
That's incorrect. There is one and only one thing called Hyper-V and it is only a Type 1 hypervisor. This is why you are getting confused when I keep describing why there is no host, because there is truly no host. YOu are assuming that there is an OS on the bare metal, which there is not.
Before Hyper-V was ever introduced on this server, it was and still is a Windows Server 2008 R2 server. They installed Windows Server 2008 R2 on a bare-metal ProLiant. Then, after several months of having the server running as a DC, SharePoint, a cert server and a file server, they decided that they wanted to make it a VM host as well, so they installed the Hyper-V role and built some VMs inside the Hyper-V console.
-
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
Right. Hyper-V is a Type 1 with KVM, Xen and ESXi.
Microsoft confuses people though the method that you use to get to the Type 1 from a standard installed Windows Server, i.e. installing the Hyper-V service. This isn't just installing a service like installing FTP or IIS. It in fact creates a shim under the current OS that is the Hyper-V OS running directly on the hardware, with the previous Windows Server OS now being the first VM.
Although to be fair, that's how VMware used to install and how Xen still does. It IS confusing, but they copied it from everyone else that existed at the time. To this day, only ESXi has changed this and only KVM never had it by default (and still does something kind of like it anyway.)
-
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
Before Hyper-V was ever introduced on this server, it was and still is a Windows Server 2008 R2 server. They installed Windows Server 2008 R2 on a bare-metal ProLiant. Then, after several months of having the server running as a DC, SharePoint, a cert server and a file server, they decided that they wanted to make it a VM host as well, so they installed the Hyper-V role and built some VMs inside the Hyper-V console.
What you are calling the "Hyper-V Console" is a VM. You are describing the standard "poor" way to install Hyper-V. It doesn't matter how Hyper-V gets installed, a type 1 hypervisor is a type 1 hypervisor. That "console" is a VM on top of Hyper-V. Hyper-V cannot run on top of Windows, it's physically impossible. This is the most common myth around Hyper-V and there are hundreds of posts on SW correcting this.
It's also often listed as the #2 reason (after licensing) that people are confused about Hyper-V and why we used to say that all Hyper-V deployments were caused by confusion.
When you install the "role" of Hyper-V, it takes the previous bare metal Windows install, packages it into a VM, installs Hyper-V beneath it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
Right. Hyper-V is a Type 1 with KVM, Xen and ESXi.
Microsoft confuses people though the method that you use to get to the Type 1 from a standard installed Windows Server, i.e. installing the Hyper-V service. This isn't just installing a service like installing FTP or IIS. It in fact creates a shim under the current OS that is the Hyper-V OS running directly on the hardware, with the previous Windows Server OS now being the first VM.
Although to be fair, that's how VMware used to install and how Xen still does. It IS confusing, but they copied it from everyone else that existed at the time. To this day, only ESXi has changed this and only KVM never had it by default (and still does something kind of like it anyway.)
I agree that that's how the others did it, and how Xen still does, but I wonder if their Linux (or Linux like) environment leads to a better understanding that it's a control only environment. With Windows, unless you read the licensing you might have no clue that a server is a Hyper-V enabled install.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
Before Hyper-V was ever introduced on this server, it was and still is a Windows Server 2008 R2 server. They installed Windows Server 2008 R2 on a bare-metal ProLiant. Then, after several months of having the server running as a DC, SharePoint, a cert server and a file server, they decided that they wanted to make it a VM host as well, so they installed the Hyper-V role and built some VMs inside the Hyper-V console.
What you are calling the "Hyper-V Console" is a VM. You are describing the standard "poor" way to install Hyper-V. It doesn't matter how Hyper-V gets installed, a type 1 hypervisor is a type 1 hypervisor. That "console" is a VM on top of Hyper-V. Hyper-V cannot run on top of Windows, it's physically impossible. This is the most common myth around Hyper-V and there are hundreds of posts on SW correcting this.
It's also often listed as the #2 reason (after licensing) that people are confused about Hyper-V and why we used to say that all Hyper-V deployments were caused by confusion.
When you install the "role" of Hyper-V, it takes the previous bare metal Windows install, packages it into a VM, installs Hyper-V beneath it.
Oh snap! I had no idea! I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.... So there's never an instance where someone installs Server 2008 on a physical box, and then later adds the Hyper-V role? You HAVE to build a bare-metal Hyper-V box first and install your server OS in it BEFORE you can then add the Hyper-V role?
update Oh, I just re-read your post. It takes the previous bare-metal WINDOWS install, and turns THAT into a VM!
-
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Dashrender said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
@Shuey said in Migrate and/or replace old cert server?:
-They installed the Hyper-V role which runs as a console (much like VMware Workstation; type 2 hypervisor)
No actually it doesn't.You lost me here... a Type 1 hypervisor is a "on hardware" hypervisor (exclusively running as the OS, like ESXi). A Type 2 hypervisor is an "on software" hypervisor (like VMware Workstation).
Right. Hyper-V is a Type 1 with KVM, Xen and ESXi.
Microsoft confuses people though the method that you use to get to the Type 1 from a standard installed Windows Server, i.e. installing the Hyper-V service. This isn't just installing a service like installing FTP or IIS. It in fact creates a shim under the current OS that is the Hyper-V OS running directly on the hardware, with the previous Windows Server OS now being the first VM.
Although to be fair, that's how VMware used to install and how Xen still does. It IS confusing, but they copied it from everyone else that existed at the time. To this day, only ESXi has changed this and only KVM never had it by default (and still does something kind of like it anyway.)
I agree that that's how the others did it, and how Xen still does, but I wonder if their Linux (or Linux like) environment leads to a better understanding that it's a control only environment. With Windows, unless you read the licensing you might have no clue that a server is a Hyper-V enabled install.
If you mean to say "people using Linux are more likely to know their OS than people using Windows", then yes. That's the same logic that I use for why running Linux and getting support is so much easier than running Windows and getting support is... because the average Windows support person doesn't know Windows that well, even if that is their focus. Whereas the average Linux person tends to know quite about more (about both.) So hence, even though there are fewer Linux support people out there, it is generally far easier to get Linux support than Windows.
