How bad is an SBS 2003 > 2007 migration?

mgeorge

Performance wise, I can definitely tell you that ESXi is a better choice. The installation of ESXi hypervisor is around 2-300Mb

I'm not all that familiar with Hyper-V, mainly because when companies think virtualization, they think VMWare. I can probably count on one hand the mount of companies I worked with that used Hyper-V.

I know with VMWare you can trunk a physical server and create different virtual servers in different VLAN's from a single trunked port from a Cisco switch. This way you can create another server or even multiple servers to put in a DMZ VLAN used for web mail access or different services of your choice.

I've seen some pretty crazy designs with vmware.

dynamik

Matt, you need to take a break from your CCIE studies. You just spilled Cisco all over my virtualization

I know what you're saying though; VMware allows for some pretty complex scenarios. And as far as ESXi goes, the footprint is only 32mb

mgeorge

Yeah >.< Sry bout that, I'll go grab the Cisco mop and try to clean up.

Yeah the 32MB hypervisor footprint is nice but I was referring to the complete installation size when its booted, which includes the v3i client installation files, tmp directory etc.. (of course what is 200-300MB anymore?) Most thumb drives are larger then that now.

Man what happened to the days of 1.44MB 3.5's

HeroPsycho

dynamik wrote: »

Matt, you need to take a break from your CCIE studies. You just spilled Cisco all over my virtualization

I know what you're saying though; VMware allows for some pretty complex scenarios. And as far as ESXi goes, the footprint is only 32mb

It's not the 32M footprint that results in the better performance. A lot of it is the single instance memory storage that HyperV can't do.

dave0212

royal wrote: »

Raid 1 = Bad Read/Good Write.

Is this not the other way round?

Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks

NetAdmin2436

dave0212 wrote: »

Is this not the other way round?

Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks

I think it depends what it's being compared to (ie, other raid levels or a single disk)
RAID Level 1

HeroPsycho

dave0212 wrote: »

Is this not the other way round?

Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks

Depends on the RAID controller. Some RAID controllers don't offer faster reading on a RAID1 mirror. In virtually all cases, any RAID offering striping has better read rates than RAID1, so it generally is safe to say RAID1 compared to RAID5 or 10 has a poorer read performance. When you add the fact that a RAID5 volume has a minimum of three disks, and RAID10 minimum of 4, he's spot on.

However, RAID1 does offer good write performance compared to say RAID5 since it doesn't have to write the data plus a parity stripe of the same data. RAID1 is typically therefore faster than RAID5 for heavy writing I/O.

In short, Royal is usually correct in his statement.