PC for running virtual machines

[grayg1]

I have been tasked with creating a PC spec that will run virtual machines. I've not had to do this before so I'm a little lost on exact requirements.

So far the idea is the main OS is not set in stone and can be anything as long as a valid argument is used (otherwise it's Windows 7 Pro / Ultimate)

The virtual machines:

Windows 7 - test environment for program with 300k+ lines of code. Write heavy workload
Ubuntu - Probably have it running some networking things, though not acting like a server to anything more like monitoring stuff
x2 Windows 7 - available for people to remote into from wherever they are and do work e.g. Excel (could be thousands of lines), Word etc. Possibly remoting into another system from within it.
Power to run one or two additional VM in the future

Simulating server backup and restore for ~100 users, though this can be done after powering down the virtual machines if needed.

My feeling is that top end i7 from your basic desktop board will be enough i.e. no need for 6+ core ivy bridge extreme.

RAM requirements:
Main OS - 3GB
Test environment - 6GB
Ubuntu - 1-2GB
x 2 Win 7 - 6GB (3GB each)
I'm just estimating, so we may as well call it 16GB (2x8GB kit)? Then slots are free for more later

I take it there's no need for a graphics card? We don't do 3D work

There isn't a budget just everything must be justified.

[Jay]

Have you looked into VMWare?

If I was you I would look into a proper server from Dell or HP with support, it's worth the cash and easily justified.

[grayg1]

Have you looked into VMWare?

Sorry I really should have mentioned this, we actually plan to use VMWare

[Jay]

VMware whitebox is not ideal for business use. Look at a Dell T320 with 32GB RAM, nice little desktop server with enough grunt for a few lightish VMs.

[Bagnaj97]

I'd go for an AMD FX83x0 and put the money saved towards more RAM. You'll need more RAM than you think and it's nice to have enough spare that you can always throw up a test VM or 2 as needed. It doesn't sound like you're running anything CPU intensive so a cheaper AMD CPU will be fine.

As others have said though, if this is for work then a "proper" server would be better. I'd certainly be looking for redundant PSUs and some form of RAID - a PSU or disk failure taking out a single machine is bad. Taking out a whole box of machines is very bad!

[Splash]

VMware whitebox is not ideal for business use. Look at a Dell T320 with 32GB RAM, nice little desktop server with enough grunt for a few lightish VMs.

More or less agree with Jay on this one - you can get hold of a Dell T110 with 32Gb for less than £600 (http://www.serversplus.com/servers/s...del-32gb4esxi5) if the T320 is out of your price range. It doesn't scale as well (max 32Gb RAM vs 192Gb for the T320)

[shaithis]

Cheap and cheerful (just ordered one myself to play with)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...E:L:OC:GB:3160

[grayg1]

Thanks guys, will have another think and discussion and come back to this thread in the future with a proper follow up.

[Bonebreaker777]

Cheap and cheerful (just ordered one myself to play with)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...E:L:OC:GB:3160

That looks like a "smart toy".
Well priced, but wonder how 4x memory modules deal with 2x CPUs with triple channel controllers.

[grayg1]

Ok so we went with an i7 + 32GB RAM + x2 SSD + x2 HDD

I did mention redundant PSU, server architecture, Xeon etc. but they weren't interested in this. It's not mission critical and if it just blows up it's not the end of the world. I have a feeling two NIC may of had some use though, but presumably we can add one to a PCI-E port.

Now I'm left with...

esxi (bare metal) Vs. vmware workstation Vs. windows 8 Hyper-v

I don't see much information on performance for windows 8 hyper-v beyond numbers mentioned during windows 8 beta. Does anyone have an opinion on it? I can see it has snapshots like workstation and that it can dynamically adjust ram allocations to VMs, so it sounds good, but is it good?

[Butuz]

ESXi all the way.

Butuz

[shaithis]

I look after a lot of virtual infrastructures and the vmware based one's are always less problematic.

ESX has a tiny footprint as well.

[stilkun]

Go with ESXi as it is a free bare metal hypervisor but you will need to spend money to get either a 64 bit pro or enterprise edition of Windows 8 to use Hyper-V feature. I used it at work so we do not have to spend money on VMware workstation and liked it, never had any problems or any struggle with running it. There is no DHCP in their Hyper-V network switch meaning you have to set static IP address for each machine. The plus side you can mount VHDX in Windows 8 as disk to access file on the virtual disk if the VM isn't running. It doesn't have access to your USB ports unlike VMware workstaion where you have go to VM settings to adjust if you don't want it to connect however you cannot drag files from the host to guest on Hyper-V whereas vmware workstation you can.

There is no harm with downloading an Windows 8 evaluation copy onto a different machine to test out Hyper-V and make a comparison to ESXi before making decision to go with others. Only Windows 8 Pro 64 bit and Enterprise 64bit editions has Hyper-V as features so the cost of obtaining a license will be a factor.

Hyper-V is good but with ESXi I think you can have more control on user accounts permissions as Windows 8 anyone can login and turn off and on VM.

Edit: There is Hyper-V server 2012 R2 which Windows Server 2012 R2 Core edition with Hyper-V and stripped all of server roles that is free to download to use as hypervisor however... you must know powershell and command line to configure it properly and can use a computer with Hyper-V GUI management tool to run VMs

[bluepumpkin]

I would agree with the previous posters, ESXi, I have come across some real pains enabling support/drivers for latest Linux distros with Hyper-V..just always seems to work easier with ESXi