blog.scottlowe.org » Microsoft http://blog.scottlowe.org The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:43:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 en 4198: Hyper-V on NetApp Deep Dive http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/12/01/4198-hyper-v-on-netapp-deep-dive/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/12/01/4198-hyper-v-on-netapp-deep-dive/#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:04:25 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/12/01/4198-hyper-v-on-netapp-deep-dive/ This session provided information on running Hyper-V with NetApp storage. The first part of the session focused primarily on Hyper-V basics, such as VHD types (dynamically-expanding, fixed-size, passthrough, differencing), partition alignment (which can only be guaranteed with fixed-size VHDs, by the way), SCVMM 2008, Windows Failover Clustering support, and such. If you’re interested in details on those topics, I suggest you have a look at my coverage of Microsoft Tech-Ed 2008 back in the summer.

The second part of the session delved into some NetApp-specific information:

  • NetApp has a PVR-only tool called HyperVIBE that helps to coordinate storage array Snapshots with the hypervisor, providing VSS integration to quiesce the VMs before taking a Snapshot on the NetApp array. This is only supported on Server Core and requires a special release of SnapDrive 6.0. (It’s only available via PVR, so don’t go searching the NetApp web site for a free download.)
  • The various members of the SnapManager family—SnapManager for SQL, SnapManager for Exchange, and SnapManager for Sharepoint—are all fully supported on Hyper-V, but only for iSCSI LUNs.
  • NetApp SnapDrive 6.x is supported both on Hyper-V hosts as well as guest VMs. On the parent partition, it can manage both Fibre Channel LUNs and iSCSI LUNs; on a child partition, it can only manage iSCSI LUNs.
  • Version 5.x of the Host Utilities Kit is strongly recommended for use with Hyper-V, and supports Fibre Channel, iSCSI, and mixed connections. It runs on either the parent or child partition, although it seems to me that it would only make sense to run it on the parent partition.
  • Data ONTAP DSM 3.2R1 is the supported and recommended DSM for MPIO support with Hyper-V. On the parent partition, it supports and manages Fibre Channel, iSCSI, and mixed paths, but in a child partition it only supports iSCSI paths. It’s also only supported in child partitions running a server OS (so no Windows XP or Windows Vista support in child partitions).

For more information, readers can refer to TR-3701 and TR-3702. Note that updated versions of TR-3702 are expected to be released in the coming months to address additional product integrations.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/12/01/4198-hyper-v-on-netapp-deep-dive/feed/ No Solaris-AD Integration Update http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/11/19/no-solaris-ad-integration-update/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/11/19/no-solaris-ad-integration-update/#comments Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:05:30 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/11/19/no-solaris-ad-integration-update/ I’m sorry, folks, but I’m not going to have the time or the resources to publish an update to my existing instructions for integrating Solaris 10 into Active Directory. Quite some time ago I had posted that I planned on creating an update to the original instructions so as to incorporate some lessons learned, but it keeps get pushed aside for other tasks that are more important and more relevant to my day-to-day work. Rather than keep readers hanging on for something that will likely never appear, I’d rather just be upfront and frank about the situation. As much as I’d love to spend some time working on the Solaris-AD integration situation and documenting my findings, I just don’t have the time. Sorry.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/11/19/no-solaris-ad-integration-update/feed/ Is Power the Key to Controlling the Cloud? http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/29/is-power-the-key-to-controlling-the-cloud/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/29/is-power-the-key-to-controlling-the-cloud/#comments Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:16:10 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/29/is-power-the-key-to-controlling-the-cloud/ While the idea of “cloud computing” is, at best, a nebulous definition, most experts and pundits agree that cloud computing is based upon Internet-scale technologies that involve large data centers such as those built and managed by companies like Google and Microsoft. But is there a dark side to the trend towards larger and larger data centers?

While “dark side” may be a bit strong, the idea that Google and Microsoft are intentionally soaking up excess power capacity in order to dominate the future of cloud computing is one that is being floated by Steve Denegri in a new article that will be published by Virtual Strategy Magazine tomorrow. As I understand it, you’ll need to sign up for a membership with Virtual Strategy to read the article.

Mr. Denegri’s theory is based on a number of contributing factors:

  1. Both Microsoft and Google are building “mega-sized facilities” in areas where power is cheap.
  2. State and local governments are granting multi-year tax incentives and relief from sales tax on equipment purchased for these data centers.
  3. Local utility companies are agreeing to power purchase agreements (PPAs) that grant Microsoft and Google incredibly favorable power costs.
  4. Both companies are working with supplies of emission-free renewable energy to help them avoid taxes based on environmental sustainability, like carbon dioxide emissions.

When you put all these factors together, Mr. Denegri theorizes, it gives Google and Microsoft the ability to dominate the future of cloud computing because they will be able to offer computing services at a cost that no one else can even come close to matching. Even the largest multinational enterprises will have a hard time gaining the same kind of economic advantages that Microsoft and Google will have already secured.

So are power and environmental sustainability the keys to controlling the future of cloud computing? Tell me what you think.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/29/is-power-the-key-to-controlling-the-cloud/feed/ Virtualization Short Take #20 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/23/virtualization-short-take-20/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/23/virtualization-short-take-20/#comments Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:04:55 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/23/virtualization-short-take-20/ This week’s Short Take is a collection of links and articles that I’ve seen over the last few weeks (or longer ago, in some cases!) that I thought others might find interesting or useful. Enjoy!

  • Alessandro broke the news to the general public about some anticipated new virtualization features that are expected to make their debut in Windows Server 2008 R2, expected sometime in 2010. Microsoft announced live migration for Hyper-V back at the beginning of September, so that part was already known. Now coming from Alessandro’s article is the announcement that Microsoft is developing a cluster file system, similar to VMFS, called Cluster Shared Volumes (CSV). Personally, this wasn’t a big surprise to me as a contact of mine leaked this to me a while ago. Hopefully this won’t hit Sanbolic too hard, whose Melio FS and Kayo FS solutions were intended to fill this gap (as discussed here and here).
  • As fully expected, VMware and Microsoft trade lots of barbs back and forth about VMware ESX vs. Hyper-V and vice versa. Out of the various exchanges, I found the “Too Dry and Crunchy” exchange—now quite old, having been published back at the end of September—the most entertaining. It started here with a barb from VMware about how Hyper-V with Server Core, the recommended configuration from Microsoft for virtualization hosts, is “not the Windows you know.” They compared Hyper-V on Server Core to ESXi and, not surprisingly, found ESXi to be easier and faster to install. What was really surprising though, was the response from James O’Neill in which he essentially agreed: Server Core isn’t “the Windows you know.” While he does love Server Core, James also recognizes that Server Core is not the right fit for every workload, and that management processes and procedures may need to change when using Server Core. Personally, I’m glad to see James recognizing and being honest about the limitations (or caveats) of Server Core. If only all vendors were so honest about their own products…one day, perhaps.
  • Duncan points out a great PDF on the definitions of various memory statistics. Readers may find that useful in understanding the various counters within VirtualCenter.
  • This VMware KB article outlines a potential VMware HA problem with multiple Service Console interfaces.
  • Andy Leonard picked up this VMware KB article that I bookmarked via Delicious.com and discussed how VMware’s recommendations and NetApp’s recommendations seem to run counter to each other. Personally, I’m inclined to follow VMware’s recommendations after the little snafu with NetApp’s NFS file locking suggestion.
  • This is a cool article on the use of ZFS and iSCSI to create clones in storage instead of at the virtualization layer. This is interesting because it’s being done with Solaris and ZFS, but it’s functionally equivalent to FlexClones with NetApp, which I’ve discussed before (see here, here, and here). Accordingly, ZFS clones will suffer from all the same limitations as NetApp FlexClones.
  • And while we’re on the topic of Sun and NetApp, what’s the deal with the recent patent rulings in the ZFS vs. WAFL lawsuit? If I’m reading this update correctly, it looks like some of the core WAFL patents from NetApp are being invalidated. Is Sun going to win this thing?

That does it for now. Thanks for reading!

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/23/virtualization-short-take-20/feed/ VMware Expands SVVP Certifications http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/15/vmware-expands-svvp-certifications/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/15/vmware-expands-svvp-certifications/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:16:38 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/15/vmware-expands-svvp-certifications/ As I discussed a few weeks ago, VMware’s original SVVP certification was limited to x86 guests with up to 4GB of RAM running on AMD Opteron-based systems. So, while VMware was the first third-party hypervisor validated under SVVP, their validation was a bit limited.

Thanks to Mike DiPetrillo via Twitter, I learned that VMware’s SVVP validation has now been expanded to include the following:

  • Both AMD Opteron and Intel-based systems
  • Both x64 and x86 guests
  • Validation of x64 guests running up to 16GB of RAM

The full list is found here.

Unfortunately, x86 guests are still limited to 4GB of RAM, but I don’t really foresee that being a major problem as I suspect the vast majority of x86 guest workloads will have 4GB or less of RAM.

Let’s hope that VMware continues to expand the SVVP certifications to include more processors (currently limited to 4 CPUs, which I’m guessing is 4 vCPUs) and more memory for both x86 and x64 workloads. Right now VMware’s list of SVVP certifications is trounced by Citrix’s list, which boasts higher CPU and higher RAM limits.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/15/vmware-expands-svvp-certifications/feed/ Now Cisco’s Participation in SVVP Becomes Clearer http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/02/now-ciscos-participation-in-svvp-becomes-clearer/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/02/now-ciscos-participation-in-svvp-becomes-clearer/#comments Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:35:14 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/02/now-ciscos-participation-in-svvp-becomes-clearer/ Some while ago, it was noted that Cisco was signed up as a participant in Microsoft’s Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP). Many wondered why—what did Cisco have up its sleeve?

This article today from InfoWorld seems to make the story much clearer:

With the new product, called Windows Server on WAAS, branch offices can host services locally including Active Directory, Microsoft Print Services, Microsoft Domain Name System Server and Microsoft Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Server. That can improve performance for branch workers and reduce costs related to wide area network connectivity and branch systems management. An IT administrator can remotely manage the Windows Server functions using Microsoft System Center.
 
Cisco used embedded virtualization technology in its appliance to enable Windows Server 2008 to run on it.

Now, the real question is this: what “embedded virtualization technology” did Cisco use?

UPDATE: Based on the comments below, it looks like KVM is the technology Cisco chose to virtualize Windows Server on WAAS. Very interesting!

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/02/now-ciscos-participation-in-svvp-becomes-clearer/feed/ Hyper-V Server Released http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/01/hyper-v-server-released/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/01/hyper-v-server-released/#comments Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:21:09 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/01/hyper-v-server-released/ Microsoft announced the release of Hyper-V Server 2008 today via a blog post on the Server and Tools Business News Bytes blog (man, is that a mouthful!). Available “later today” as a free download, Hyper-V Server is Microsoft’s “bare metal” hypervisor-based virtualization product. Although the blog post said later today, I tried downloading it right away anyway, but the download link apparently doesn’t yet work.

<aside>I don’t know that it can really be called a “bare metal” virtualization solution since it still does require Windows Server 2008, albeit a heavily stripped-down version, in the parent partition in order to provide I/O drivers.</aside>

Hyper-V Server 2008 can be downloaded here.

Technical resources for Hyper-V Server 2008 can be found here.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/10/01/hyper-v-server-released/feed/ A Collection of Hyper-V Links http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/25/a-collection-of-hyper-v-links/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/25/a-collection-of-hyper-v-links/#comments Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:34:04 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/25/a-collection-of-hyper-v-links/ While trying to clear out the backlog of articles that have accumulated in my Reading/Review context in OmniFocus, I’ve come across a number of Hyper-V articles on various topics:

  • Robert Larson has a good article at VirtualizationAdmin.com that covers how to work with VLANs with Hyper-V. That includes information on configuring the parent partition to use VLANs as well as configuring child partitions to use VLANs. The title of the article is completely wrong for the content, but it’s still a useful article nevertheless.
  • Via Ben Armstrong, I saw that there is a VMC to Hyper-V import tool. More information on the tool is available here. In addition, Ben also recently mentioned a Hyper-V VSS hotfix that fixes a problem with VSS failing to backup any VMs if even a single VM has a corrupt or invalid configuration file.
  • And while we’re on the subject of migrating to Hyper-V from Virtual Server or Virtual PC, this blog post provides a checklist of things to do when migrating virtual machines from those older platforms to Hyper-V.
  • Hyper-V’s Linux Integration Components—the paravirtualized drivers (or synthetic devices, or virtualization-optimized components, or whatever else you want to call them) that provide better performance under Hyper-V—have been officially released.
  • By the way, this page provides a comparison of Hyper-V Server 2008 and more “traditional” implementations of Hyper-V with a full Windows Server 2008 parent partition.
  • Looking for a comparison of performance with dynamic VHDs and fixed VHDs? Inquiring minds want to know! Get the scoop here.

That’s it for now. If any readers have other useful or helpful Hyper-V links, please share them in the comments.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/25/a-collection-of-hyper-v-links/feed/ Hyper-V Update Released http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/24/hyper-v-update-released/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/24/hyper-v-update-released/#comments Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:20:53 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/24/hyper-v-update-released/ I was alerted to this by a friend of mine within the Borg mothership…er, who works at Microsoft. An update has been released for the Hyper-V role of Windows Server 2008 x64 (available for download here) that increases the number of processors and virtual machines supported. With the update, Hyper-V can support up to 24 logical processors and up to 192 virtual machines. My contact also tells me that the update doubles the address space cache limit (up to 384 from 192), although I didn’t see that documented anywhere.

The related Microsoft KB article for the Hyper-V update also makes mention of a couple of interesting tidbits:

  • Although the update does allow Hyper-V to run up to 192 virtual machines, a Registry edit is required if users want to run more than 150 virtual machines.
  • If you want to run Windows Server 2008 on a 6-core CPU, you may also have to install hotfix 950182. Apparently, Windows expected CPU core counts to always be powers of 2 (i.e., 2, 4, 8). This update fixes that assumption.

Thanks to my contact for the tip.

UPDATE: My contact (need to think up a cool code name for her/him) supplied a link to the documentation on the increase of the address space cache limit. That information is here.

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/24/hyper-v-update-released/feed/ VMware ESX SVVP Validation Apparently Limited http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/23/vmware-esx-svvp-validation-apparently-limited/ http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/23/vmware-esx-svvp-validation-apparently-limited/#comments Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:21:56 +0000 slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/23/vmware-esx-svvp-validation-apparently-limited/ A few weeks ago I blogged about SVVP validation of VMware ESX 3.5 Update 2. Just last week, though, I learned that Microsoft’s validation may be quite limited. According to this article, the validation is handled per CPU architecture, per memory configuration. So, apparently VMware ESX is validated on an AMD system with 4GB of RAM, but that’s about it.

Does anyone have any information to back this up? Or any information on additional CPU architectures and memory configurations that are currently being tested for validation?

Similar Posts:]]> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/09/23/vmware-esx-svvp-validation-apparently-limited/feed/