Solved Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?
-
@Obsolesce said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
How number of Physical Processors and number of cores on each processor will impact Windows Server licenses?
Windows Standard Server is licensed for 16 cores. If you have 18 cores, you suddenly find yourself needing to buy additional 'core' licenses on top of the Standard Server license to be compliant.
Try sticking with just 16 cores if at all possible.
CPU count matters too... if you have 4x CPUs @ 4 cores each, you'll have to buy double the licensing as "normal".
Sure, but that's pretty uncommon these days, considering you can get what 64 core CPUs today? or more.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
This server I'm going to procure is going to host huge sized File Server, due to huge size storage requirement, cost is going very high with SAS drives. Is using SATA hard drives on Server is bad idea? because it SATA can fulfill our requirements of storage size and can match the budget.
SATA or SAS makes no difference at all but there are different classes of hard drives which may or may not be a good choice for your server.
You get the lowest storage costs with 3.5" drives compared to 2.5" drives. You get the highest reliability and the the longest warranty (5 years) with enterprise drives. On enterprise drives SATA and SAS costs the same.
Performance is also a factor, SAS can be faster than SATAs.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
This server I'm going to procure is going to host huge sized File Server, due to huge size storage requirement, cost is going very high with SAS drives. Is using SATA hard drives on Server is bad idea? because it SATA can fulfill our requirements of storage size and can match the budget.
SATA or SAS makes no difference at all but there are different classes of hard drives which may or may not be a good choice for your server.
You get the lowest storage costs with 3.5" drives compared to 2.5" drives. You get the highest reliability and the the longest warranty (5 years) with enterprise drives. On enterprise drives SATA and SAS costs the same.
Performance is also a factor, SAS can be faster than SATAs.
Yes, in theory 12 Gbps SAS-3 or 6 Gbps SATA-3 make a difference. But with mechanical drives the drive is much slower than the interface so the drive itself becomes the bottleneck. Seagate Exos 16 enterprise drives for instance can sustain a transfer rate of 261 MB/sec. That's roughly 3 Gbps so about half the speed of SATA. That is one of the fastest 3.5" drive available.
-
No need for Hyper-V, that's not part of the equation. It's true with Hyper-V, it's true without it.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
SATA or SAS makes no difference at all but there are different classes of hard drives which may or may not be a good choice for your server.
It does. SATA doesn't have the advanced queueing of SAS which can change performance by as much as 20% with the same mechanicals.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Install hyper-v as the base, don't install Windows and enable the role.
Then you can add two windows vms using a standard license.
Or install something else. KVM, Proxmox, XCP-NG, all options too with the same licensing.
-
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I don't want to go with Hyper-V as base
That why use Hyper-V at all? What's driving you to all that complexity and licensing headaches if it doesn't meet your needs?
-
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I'm not good at PowerShell to overcome the problems.
Then why are you running Windows and Hyper-V, platforms based around using PowerShell? Seems like the wrong tech to be using.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
SATA or SAS makes no difference at all but there are different classes of hard drives which may or may not be a good choice for your server.
It does. SATA doesn't have the advanced queueing of SAS which can change performance by as much as 20% with the same mechanicals.
Thanks, I was thinking the same thing!
-
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I'm here as all-in-one IT, got many things to manage, so better I go with GUI and not require to spend time on why I can't connect to Hyper-V base.
This makes Hyper-V absolutely the wrong choice. Your first part, in bold, makes sense. Your conclusion from it does not. Given the first part, you don't have any reason to them be using the unnecessarily complicated and hard to support approach.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I don't want to go with Hyper-V as base
That why use Hyper-V at all? What's driving you to all that complexity and licensing headaches if it doesn't meet your needs?
There no licensing complexity - there is an assurance to NOT put anything on the host OS.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I don't want to go with Hyper-V as base
That why use Hyper-V at all? What's driving you to all that complexity and licensing headaches if it doesn't meet your needs?
There no licensing complexity - there is an assurance to NOT put anything on the host OS.
There is ALWAYS licensing complexity.
First: That you have to manage which instances can and can't have anything installed.
Second: That you have to maintain the version of the underlying hypervisor to match the licensing of the VMs on top.This is a level of licensing complexity that screws shops constantly. It's enough for many IT shops to fall down on it. It means the obvious "keep things up to date" mentality breaks and you have to track licenses for something that shouldn't need a license.
That's not just complexity, it's problematic complexity that, in the real world, we see screwing companies constantly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
SATA or SAS makes no difference at all but there are different classes of hard drives which may or may not be a good choice for your server.
It does. SATA doesn't have the advanced queueing of SAS which can change performance by as much as 20% with the same mechanicals.
That's old legacy info, not applicable to a huge fileserver and 3.5" drives. I mean it's true but it makes no difference.
Even back in the days I bet those "up to 20%" was a theoretical number when you had one 2.5" drive and no raid controller with cache. Which is basically never happens.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Even back in the days I bet those "up to 20%" was a theoretical number when you had one 2.5" drive and no raid controller with cache. Which is basically never happens.
Well as essentially no RAID controllers accept SATA drives, it's decently common even there. But it would be interesting to see on MD or ZFS what kind of numbers are seen. But those stats were from VMware, so presumably tested in RAID.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Even back in the days I bet those "up to 20%" was a theoretical number when you had one 2.5" drive and no raid controller with cache. Which is basically never happens.
Well as essentially no RAID controllers accept SATA drives, it's decently common even there. But it would be interesting to see on MD or ZFS what kind of numbers are seen. But those stats were from VMware, so presumably tested in RAID.
That's a logical fallacy Scott. How could VMware do their test on RAID comparing SATA and SAS command queing performance when there are no RAID cards that accepts SATA?
Actually all raid cards I know support both SATA and SAS, for instance the Megaraid series from LSI/Broadcom that Dell, HP and everybody else rebrands.
It used to be that SATA drives were second rate citizens. It also used to be that SATA drives did a poor implementation of the command queing available with SATA aka NCQ because SATA was primarily a low cost drive for consumers.
But nowadays you can get the same high capacity enterprise drives with either SATA or SAS interface. And if you look at the stated performance on IOPS for random read/write operations you'll see that it's the same. On Exos 16 for instance it's 170/440.
On a file server it will be the file buffers in RAM on the guest OS/host and the RAID card cache that will have the largest impact. And SSD cache if it's available.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@openit said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
I don't want to go with Hyper-V as base
That why use Hyper-V at all? What's driving you to all that complexity and licensing headaches if it doesn't meet your needs?
There no licensing complexity - there is an assurance to NOT put anything on the host OS.
There is ALWAYS licensing complexity.
First: That you have to manage which instances can and can't have anything installed.
Second: That you have to maintain the version of the underlying hypervisor to match the licensing of the VMs on top.This is a level of licensing complexity that screws shops constantly. It's enough for many IT shops to fall down on it. It means the obvious "keep things up to date" mentality breaks and you have to track licenses for something that shouldn't need a license.
That's not just complexity, it's problematic complexity that, in the real world, we see screwing companies constantly.
What? Are you saying you can't run higher VM's on the old hypervisor? i.e. downgrade rights?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Even back in the days I bet those "up to 20%" was a theoretical number when you had one 2.5" drive and no raid controller with cache. Which is basically never happens.
Well as essentially no RAID controllers accept SATA drives, it's decently common even there. But it would be interesting to see on MD or ZFS what kind of numbers are seen. But those stats were from VMware, so presumably tested in RAID.
really? My old VM host is all SATA drives on a RAID controller - RAID 10.
-
@Dashrender said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
Even back in the days I bet those "up to 20%" was a theoretical number when you had one 2.5" drive and no raid controller with cache. Which is basically never happens.
Well as essentially no RAID controllers accept SATA drives, it's decently common even there. But it would be interesting to see on MD or ZFS what kind of numbers are seen. But those stats were from VMware, so presumably tested in RAID.
really? My old VM host is all SATA drives on a RAID controller - RAID 10.
Yeah I've got an old R710 with a card that accepts SATA.
-
@Pete-S said in Window server standard edition on Hyper V- means two Wins VMs ?:
How could VMware do their test on RAID comparing SATA and SAS command queing performance when there are no RAID cards that accepts SATA?
Interposers?
-
@Pete-S I haven't come across a raid card that didn't work with sata drives.
