ASP Developer Network - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com

ASPDeveloper

ASPDeveloper.Net / VirtualServerFAQ.COM

Make sure you go to our home page for:

* Virtual Server 2005 FAQ
* ASP.Net 2.0 Information
* ASP.Net 2.0 Streaming Tutorials
* ASP.Net 2.0 HTML based Tutorials

Made possible by Business Internet Technology Shop (BitShop)

Virtual Server 2005

Recent Virtual Server 2005 posts

* Preventing Excel Auto_Open() Macro runnng on vpc -Holding "Shift" doesn"t work
* Graphics issue trying to install RHEL 5 on Virtual Server
* Virtualise Windows 2008 Server Active Directory
* How do I get addition CPU cores to register.
* Looking for a HyperV expert - small contracting job
* Remote desktop issue
* Supported OS guests
* Help - W2K3 Host, VM Networking Problem
* Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 64-bit Guest OS Error
* Help - W2K3 Host, VM Networking Problem
* Forcing the use of a network connection
* Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 On Intel Core Quad
* 6 Core Processors?
* Server Vitualization n Comparison of Hyper-V, Xen n VMWare
* Pricing for SoftGrid
* Shutdown and startup Hyper-V Virtual Machine via script
* Installing Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 to SBS 2008
* can"t access eachother between VM
* SNMP on Hyper-v
* SCVMM 2008 reporting. Where is the SCVMM 2008 MP for SCOM?????

Add Solution

Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Source: microsoft.public.virtualserver
Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am>
Message:

I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
Win2008 64bit
IBM System x3250 M2
Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
8GB RAM
Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs

One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small SQL DB
and some Wonderware Software.
This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it

Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
Clients.
Okay, but some of the clients are slow

Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
This machine is fine...

So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is Drive
Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running off iSCSI.
that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...

Suggestions, comments?

Thanks,
Scott<-

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Related Messages

Re: Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

I'm with Steve on this. HD I/O is the single biggest slow down point.
Virtualization is very I/O intensive, and really needs a fast, wide, I/O
subsystem. The first place is to spend money on hard disks, and a good
caching RAID controller. Lots of small disks are a LOT better than a pair of
large ones.

Another area is RAM. Use at LEAST as much RAM for the VMs as you would a
physical computer.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

>I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
> Win2008 64bit
> IBM System x3250 M2
> Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
> 8GB RAM
> Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs
>
> One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small SQL DB
> and some Wonderware Software.
> This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it
>
> Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
> Clients.
> Okay, but some of the clients are slow
>
> Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
> Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
> This machine is fine...
>
>
> So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is Drive
> Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running off
> iSCSI. that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...
>
> Suggestions, comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott<-
>
>

Re: Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am>
Message:

So I have the two 750GB SATA 3GB Drives in a RAID 0,

So are the SATA 3G Drives okay, or should I go with the SAS? It just hurts
to look at the price per GB difference.

Seems like I've seen some people use iSCSI, Is iSCSI a good way to go? Or
should I stick with internal RAID?

2 Servers are at one location, so I could get a iSCSI array and create 2
arrays with say 5 disks each?

Thanks,
Scott<-

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> I'm with Steve on this. HD I/O is the single biggest slow down point.
> Virtualization is very I/O intensive, and really needs a fast, wide, I/O
> subsystem. The first place is to spend money on hard disks, and a good
> caching RAID controller. Lots of small disks are a LOT better than a pair
> of large ones.
>
> Another area is RAM. Use at LEAST as much RAM for the VMs as you would a
> physical computer.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
>> Win2008 64bit
>> IBM System x3250 M2
>> Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
>> 8GB RAM
>> Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs
>>
>> One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small SQL
>> DB and some Wonderware Software.
>> This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it
>>
>> Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
>> Clients.
>> Okay, but some of the clients are slow
>>
>> Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
>> Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
>> This machine is fine...
>>
>>
>> So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is Drive
>> Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running off
>> iSCSI. that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...
>>
>> Suggestions, comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott<-
>>
>>
>

Re: Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

iSCSI v. internal RAID is simply a choice - if you've got the space for a
good wide array, then internal is fine and preferred. If you need to run an
external array on a standalone SAN, then iSCSI is a good way to go. If you
_do_ choose to use iSCSI, make sure you have a separate NIC for connecting
to your iSCSI array.

As for SAS v. SATA - well, SAS is always going to be a better choice in a
Server environment. But it is a good deal more expensive. I know I'm _very_
happy with the performance here on my 8x SAS array, on an HP 400 RAID
controller with 512 MB of cache. They're 15k, 2.5" disks, and for my
purposes I've got them in a simple RAID-5, though I'd probably switch that
to either RAID-6 or RAID-0+1 if it were production machines. My host OS is
on a mirrored pair of SAS drives, and I have a pair of RAID-0 SATA drives I
use for miscellaneous storage, for things I don't care about like ISOs and
such.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> So I have the two 750GB SATA 3GB Drives in a RAID 0,
>
> So are the SATA 3G Drives okay, or should I go with the SAS? It just
> hurts to look at the price per GB difference.
>
> Seems like I've seen some people use iSCSI, Is iSCSI a good way to go? Or
> should I stick with internal RAID?
>
> 2 Servers are at one location, so I could get a iSCSI array and create 2
> arrays with say 5 disks each?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott<-
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> I'm with Steve on this. HD I/O is the single biggest slow down point.
>> Virtualization is very I/O intensive, and really needs a fast, wide, I/O
>> subsystem. The first place is to spend money on hard disks, and a good
>> caching RAID controller. Lots of small disks are a LOT better than a pair
>> of large ones.
>>
>> Another area is RAM. Use at LEAST as much RAM for the VMs as you would a
>> physical computer.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
>>> Win2008 64bit
>>> IBM System x3250 M2
>>> Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
>>> 8GB RAM
>>> Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs
>>>
>>> One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small SQL
>>> DB and some Wonderware Software.
>>> This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it
>>>
>>> Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
>>> Clients.
>>> Okay, but some of the clients are slow
>>>
>>> Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
>>> Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
>>> This machine is fine...
>>>
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is Drive
>>> Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running off
>>> iSCSI. that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...
>>>
>>> Suggestions, comments?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott<-
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am>
Message:

So you think the iSCSI would be fast enough Through the Separate GB Port to
be able to run 2-3 VMs from?

I'm thinking for the 2 VM Servers in the 1 Location I can get a Dual 1GB
Port iSCSI SAN and have each server have its own NIC to the iSCSI Box.

So we are talking about iSCSI as in a 1GB Ethernet Connection to a Drive
Array. Right? Not the FC connection via HBA...

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> iSCSI v. internal RAID is simply a choice - if you've got the space for a
> good wide array, then internal is fine and preferred. If you need to run
> an external array on a standalone SAN, then iSCSI is a good way to go. If
> you _do_ choose to use iSCSI, make sure you have a separate NIC for
> connecting to your iSCSI array.
>
> As for SAS v. SATA - well, SAS is always going to be a better choice in a
> Server environment. But it is a good deal more expensive. I know I'm
> _very_ happy with the performance here on my 8x SAS array, on an HP 400
> RAID controller with 512 MB of cache. They're 15k, 2.5" disks, and for my
> purposes I've got them in a simple RAID-5, though I'd probably switch that
> to either RAID-6 or RAID-0+1 if it were production machines. My host OS is
> on a mirrored pair of SAS drives, and I have a pair of RAID-0 SATA drives
> I use for miscellaneous storage, for things I don't care about like ISOs
> and such.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> So I have the two 750GB SATA 3GB Drives in a RAID 0,
>>
>> So are the SATA 3G Drives okay, or should I go with the SAS? It just
>> hurts to look at the price per GB difference.
>>
>> Seems like I've seen some people use iSCSI, Is iSCSI a good way to go? Or
>> should I stick with internal RAID?
>>
>> 2 Servers are at one location, so I could get a iSCSI array and create 2
>> arrays with say 5 disks each?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott<-
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> I'm with Steve on this. HD I/O is the single biggest slow down point.
>>> Virtualization is very I/O intensive, and really needs a fast, wide, I/O
>>> subsystem. The first place is to spend money on hard disks, and a good
>>> caching RAID controller. Lots of small disks are a LOT better than a
>>> pair of large ones.
>>>
>>> Another area is RAM. Use at LEAST as much RAM for the VMs as you would a
>>> physical computer.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
>>>> Win2008 64bit
>>>> IBM System x3250 M2
>>>> Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
>>>> 8GB RAM
>>>> Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs
>>>>
>>>> One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small SQL
>>>> DB and some Wonderware Software.
>>>> This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it
>>>>
>>>> Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
>>>> Clients.
>>>> Okay, but some of the clients are slow
>>>>
>>>> Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
>>>> Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
>>>> This machine is fine...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is Drive
>>>> Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running off
>>>> iSCSI. that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions, comments?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Scott<-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Hyper-V performance - Hardware Reccomendations?

Sent: 11/13/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

IF the underlying SAN is fast enough, and if you're using real server NICs,
and a dedicated LAN for it, yes, I think so. But I'd still prefer local
storage if that's a possibility.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> So you think the iSCSI would be fast enough Through the Separate GB Port
> to be able to run 2-3 VMs from?
>
> I'm thinking for the 2 VM Servers in the 1 Location I can get a Dual 1GB
> Port iSCSI SAN and have each server have its own NIC to the iSCSI Box.
>
> So we are talking about iSCSI as in a 1GB Ethernet Connection to a Drive
> Array. Right? Not the FC connection via HBA...
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> iSCSI v. internal RAID is simply a choice - if you've got the space for a
>> good wide array, then internal is fine and preferred. If you need to run
>> an external array on a standalone SAN, then iSCSI is a good way to go. If
>> you _do_ choose to use iSCSI, make sure you have a separate NIC for
>> connecting to your iSCSI array.
>>
>> As for SAS v. SATA - well, SAS is always going to be a better choice in a
>> Server environment. But it is a good deal more expensive. I know I'm
>> _very_ happy with the performance here on my 8x SAS array, on an HP 400
>> RAID controller with 512 MB of cache. They're 15k, 2.5" disks, and for my
>> purposes I've got them in a simple RAID-5, though I'd probably switch
>> that to either RAID-6 or RAID-0+1 if it were production machines. My host
>> OS is on a mirrored pair of SAS drives, and I have a pair of RAID-0 SATA
>> drives I use for miscellaneous storage, for things I don't care about
>> like ISOs and such.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> So I have the two 750GB SATA 3GB Drives in a RAID 0,
>>>
>>> So are the SATA 3G Drives okay, or should I go with the SAS? It just
>>> hurts to look at the price per GB difference.
>>>
>>> Seems like I've seen some people use iSCSI, Is iSCSI a good way to go?
>>> Or should I stick with internal RAID?
>>>
>>> 2 Servers are at one location, so I could get a iSCSI array and create 2
>>> arrays with say 5 disks each?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott<-
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>> I'm with Steve on this. HD I/O is the single biggest slow down point.
>>>> Virtualization is very I/O intensive, and really needs a fast, wide,
>>>> I/O subsystem. The first place is to spend money on hard disks, and a
>>>> good caching RAID controller. Lots of small disks are a LOT better than
>>>> a pair of large ones.
>>>>
>>>> Another area is RAM. Use at LEAST as much RAM for the VMs as you would
>>>> a physical computer.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Scott Townsend" <(email address - cut out)am> wrote in message
>>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>I have 3 Hyper-V Servers
>>>>> Win2008 64bit
>>>>> IBM System x3250 M2
>>>>> Intel Xeon x2350 2.66GHz QuadCore
>>>>> 8GB RAM
>>>>> Dual 750GB SATA 7200 3GB HDs
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the servers has 2 Win2003 Servers running on it with a small
>>>>> SQL DB and some Wonderware Software.
>>>>> This machine is dog slow with the 2 Win2003 Servers on it
>>>>>
>>>>> Another has 2 copies of Win2003, SQL Server and Terminal Server w/ 16
>>>>> Clients.
>>>>> Okay, but some of the clients are slow
>>>>>
>>>>> Another has A Win2000 Server DC roll with OfficeScan Server, Win2003
>>>>> Certificate & Syslog Server, WinXP Engineering Dev machine
>>>>> This machine is fine...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm wondering if I should have different hardware or what? Is
>>>>> Drive Speed that big of a boost? Seems like I've heard people running
>>>>> off iSCSI. that seems slower then a 7200 3GB SATA Drive...
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions, comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Scott<-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Other groups

Virtual PC (Mac)(3520)	Virtual PC(12097)	Virtual PC (French)(435)
Virtual Server 2005(5578)

Our Sponsors

Virtual Server 2005 Info Here!
http://www.aspdeveloper.net

Wiki

Blogs

Articles

Image galleries

File galleries

Forums

Maps

Directories

ASP Developer Network (since 1996) - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com
Copyright © 1997-2005 by BitShop, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No content may be reproduced in any form without written permission from BitShop, Inc.
We will be honored to assist with reproduction rights on our material if you contact us.
We also can provide print articles for your magazine, private training seminars at your site, and conference presentations.
Thank you for visiting. Please bookmark our site if you found it useful!
If you wish to make a donation it will help further the development of these free resources: