Terminal Server on virtual server

[Jeremy]

Hello everyone,
I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.

 

[moncho]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

Jeremy wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
> virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
> TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
> performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.

Google this group for more information on past debates about this
subject.

So far the debate leans towards don't but that depends on the
the software you use.

Consensus is if on Windows 32bit, it would not be wise but it
may be a go if the host is Windows 64 bit with a Windows 32Bit
client.

moncho

 

[Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

Jeremy wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
> virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
> TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
> performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.

I do it all the time, but only for testing. The performance hit is too
large and we can't afford to throw hardware at it....

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

 

[Jeremy]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

Thank you for the feedback Hank. It's funny, the Sales guy tells you oh, yeah
no problem at all. oh well, maybe next year.

"Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:

> Jeremy wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
> > virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
> > TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
> > performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.
>
> I do it all the time, but only for testing. The performance hit is too
> large and we can't afford to throw hardware at it....
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Hank Arnold
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Server - Directory Services
>

 

[Jeff Pitsch]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

And for you it may be ok. Truthfully, 25 users per server is a pretty
low number generally. Depending on what exactly you are doing from an
application standpoint, you may very well be able to virtualize these
servers and have fine performance. Let me ask you this: Have you ever
baselined your servers so you know the maximum number of users you can
get on a server? Without this information, you really have no idea if
virtualization will work or not. The only way you'll know is by
actually virtualizing and seeing if it works.

Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services

Jeremy wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback Hank. It's funny, the Sales guy tells you oh, yeah
> no problem at all. oh well, maybe next year.
>
> "Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:
>
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
>>> virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
>>> TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
>>> performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.
>> I do it all the time, but only for testing. The performance hit is too
>> large and we can't afford to throw hardware at it....
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank Arnold
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>

 

[Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

Jeremy wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback Hank. It's funny, the Sales guy tells you oh, yeah
> no problem at all. oh well, maybe next year.
>
> "Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:
>
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
>>> virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
>>> TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
>>> performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.
>> I do it all the time, but only for testing. The performance hit is too
>> large and we can't afford to throw hardware at it....
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank Arnold
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Server - Directory Services
>>

Don't take my reply to mean that what you want to do isn't possible. The
hardware I have isn't powerful enough to absorb the performance hit. In
a test environment, my concern is functionality. Does everything work as
expected? We tell testers up front that performance is not to be
considered. Virtualization is clearly being done by a lot of folks and
very successfully. I think my warning is that you need to evaluate the
situation you are trying to virtualize very carefully and make sure that
the hardware you have is sufficient for the task. As Jeff Pitsch
indicated, an average of 25 users isn't, by itself, a huge load.

I guess that my point is that a virtual server running on a specific
hardware platform will, IMNSHO, suffer a performance hit. Given
sufficient hardware, that may be an acceptable hit....

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

 

[Jeremy]

Re: Terminal Server on virtual server

I really appreciate the feedback. This is what I'm working with:

Dell PE 500sc - old DC - going away soon.
Dell PE 1800 - Terminal server - would go away if we virtualized.
Dell PE 2850 - Exchange
Dell PE 2950 - File Server
Dell PE 6850 - Terminal Server
EMC SAN

I know thats not much detail. They all run 2003 Std, except the 6850 is 2003
Enterprise. I don't have an accurate baseline. I may try setting up a virtual
server on the 6850, and have some people test it out. And no i don't have a
baseline. I will create one before adding the VS though. Thanks and let me
know if you have any other feedback once you see what i'm working with.


"Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:

> Jeremy wrote:
> > Thank you for the feedback Hank. It's funny, the Sales guy tells you oh, yeah
> > no problem at all. oh well, maybe next year.
> >
> > "Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:
> >
> >> Jeremy wrote:
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>> I'm curious to know if anyone is running there 2003 terminal servers in a
> >>> virtual environment. I currently only have 50 users split between two 2003
> >>> TS. I have been debating on going virtual, but don't want to lose on
> >>> performance. The driving force is going green. Thanks for any feedback.
> >> I do it all the time, but only for testing. The performance hit is too
> >> large and we can't afford to throw hardware at it....
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hank Arnold
> >> Microsoft MVP
> >> Windows Server - Directory Services
> >>
>
> Don't take my reply to mean that what you want to do isn't possible. The
> hardware I have isn't powerful enough to absorb the performance hit. In
> a test environment, my concern is functionality. Does everything work as
> expected? We tell testers up front that performance is not to be
> considered. Virtualization is clearly being done by a lot of folks and
> very successfully. I think my warning is that you need to evaluate the
> situation you are trying to virtualize very carefully and make sure that
> the hardware you have is sufficient for the task. As Jeff Pitsch
> indicated, an average of 25 users isn't, by itself, a huge load.
>
> I guess that my point is that a virtual server running on a specific
> hardware platform will, IMNSHO, suffer a performance hit. Given
> sufficient hardware, that may be an acceptable hit....
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Hank Arnold
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Server - Directory Services
>