Software for VCP5 lab

MacGuffin

Soon I will set up a computer for studying for my VCP5 certification. I have not yet obtained the hardware for this yet but I have a good idea on what it will be. What concerns me now is what software I should have to get this computer set up for my labs. Assume for the moment that the computer in question is a dual or quad core Intel i5 or i7 with 8GB RAM. Also assume that this computer will be the only computer for the lab. I will consider suggestions for a second computer in the lab if this is considerably advantageous on cost, convenience, or speed. The requirements for the second computer should be fulfilled by something I already have, something on the order of a 32 bit processor, 1GB RAM, and generally something that someone else has discarded and somehow ended up in my basement.

I'm not asking so much about what is out there or what is possible since I feel I have a pretty good grasp of that. What I am asking is what has worked for you and/or what would you do in my situation. I'll break the possible solutions into three categories.

- All free. This does not mean only open source, although that might be preferred, but any software that can be obtained at no cost and is generally unrestricted on licensing for personal or educational use.
- Best value. As all software is not free-as-in-beer I do understand that I may have to dish out some dollars to make things easier for me.
- Money no object. If you could buy any software you wanted what would it be? I'll toss in here some minor hardware changes such as more memory and/or network interfaces. I don't want to go overboard on hardware for the sake of space, cost, and my own sanity.

The intent is to have a hardware/software configuration that would allow me to practice with multiple instances of ESXi 5.0 so that I can study up for my VCP5 certification test.

blargoe

The second computer, if it's 32 bit will not work. Must be 64 bit.

If you are OK with spending a little money on software grab a copy of VMWare Workstation (< 200.00 I think, and I think you can get a 60 day trial). Install Windows or Linux on your lab computer and install VMware Workstation, and then you can run 2 ESXi hosts and a NAS server inside VM Workstation and simulate HA and DRS. Google "ESXi in a box", that's what I've seen this referred to as. If you do this, I would go Quad Core if you can afford it.

MacGuffin

Seeing blargoe's reply it appears I need to clarify a couple assumptions. The consideration of a second computer is not to run another instance of ESXi but to run any client applications and/or any servers that might be, required, nice to have, or reduce load, for the lab-in-a-box. For example, if I were to run ESXi or Hyper-V on the metal of this lab-in-a-box it might be preferable (or even necessary) to run the server management software on a separate computer. I haven't checked for certain but I believe in both cases that while the hypervisor requires 64 bit processors the management software does not. Do not assume the lab in a box will be run headless or host the client/management software, I'm investigating both options.

Another assumption that I'm not sure I was clear on is that assume the computer does not come with an operating system. I'm investigating options and it appears that there is a high probability that any computer I obtain will not come with an operating system. It's likely I'll build a PC from components or get a computer second hand. I might get a computer with an OS included but I do not know if it will be suitable for the task at hand so the cost of the operating system will have to be considered.

If I do as blargoe suggests and use VMWare Workstation then which operating system should I use to host it?

Linux is an obvious choice given it's price and support. If I take this path then the question becomes which Linux distribution should I use? Or rather, which Linux distribution has worked best for you?

Windows is another choice but, like Linux, it comes in several flavors. If I were able to choose which Windows flavor comes on the machine, or I had to buy it separate, which should I use? Does it matter which Windows flavor I choose?

I have been investigating options elsewhere but I thought I'd get some suggestions here before I said too much about what I found.

MentholMoose

You can build a vSphere in a box lab without spending a dime on software. Use the evaluation versions of VMware Workstation and vSphere on your preferred free Linux distribution, or an eval of a 64-bit Windows OS. Or you may be able to install free ESXi directly on your lab box and setup the vSphere eval on it, in which case you'd need another desktop to run vSphere Client. The vSphere components and supporting machines (e.g. a SAN) needed for the VCP can all be run as VMs on VMware Workstation or ESXi.

Using all eval software can get annoying since the software will expire and you will need to reinstall or reformat and start over. But it is pretty much required anyway since nobody would buy vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses to study for the VCP. It's up to you if you want to spend some money (e.g. VMware Workstation, Windows) to avoid inconvenience. Once you pass the VCP you will get a free Workstation license so you might want to try to use the eval.

MacGuffin

MentholMoose wrote: »

You can build a vSphere in a box lab without spending a dime on software. Use the evaluation versions of VMware Workstation and vSphere on your preferred free Linux distribution, or an eval of a 64-bit Windows OS. Or you may be able to install free ESXi directly on your lab box and setup the vSphere eval on it, in which case you'd need another desktop to run vSphere Client. The vSphere components and supporting machines (e.g. a SAN) needed for the VCP can all be run as VMs on VMware Workstation or ESXi.

I realize the "tone of my voice" does not translate well over the printed word so don't take this the wrong way but I know that is what I can do. The question is, what is the preferable thing to do? Put another way, what did you do and why did you choose that setup?

I realize that there are probably over a thousand different ways to do this. Given the large number of options I feel a bit overwhelmed and am having difficulty in choosing a path to take. In the end I'll probably try a few different things but I thought I'd get some feedback from people that did this before so that I don't repeat mistakes others have made.

MentholMoose wrote: »

Using all eval software can get annoying since the software will expire and you will need to reinstall or reformat and start over. But it is pretty much required anyway since nobody would buy vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses to study for the VCP. It's up to you if you want to spend some money (e.g. VMware Workstation, Windows) to avoid inconvenience. Once you pass the VCP you will get a free Workstation license so you might want to try to use the eval.

This is where the cost to benefit ratios come in. If you were to make a guess at what option has the best cost to benefit ratio what would that be and how much would it cost?

Thinking about the "money no object" option some more I now realize that this question is a bit open ended. I'm guessing the answer would be... buy everything! Well, I think I need to place some sort of sane lid on this. If you could buy any one hypervisor, or operating system and emulator, for the host then what would that be? Given a single PC with a quad core processor and 8 or 16 GB of RAM how many different operating systems would you run on the virtual machines, and what would those be?

Mostly for my own benefit mostly I'll create a diagram of the layers involved.

VM | VM | VM | VM | VM | VM | VM
=====
ESXi VM | ESXi VM | ESXi VM | management VM | other server VM?
=====
Host OS/emulator or hypervisor
=====
Metal

I see many options for what sits on the metal. There's ESXi and Hyper-V as hypervisors. For emulators I see VMWare Workstation/Player/Fusion or VirtualBox on top of Windows, Linux, or MacOS. There's VirtualPC on Windows but I do not recall anyone taking this option, why is that? Those I just mentioned are probably the most common but there is also QEMU, KVM, Xen, and probably more. Some of these options are stepping too far out of my comfort zone and so I'd need some compelling reason to consider them.

The operating systems are just "classes" of operating systems. "Windows" could mean a lot of things, as does "Linux" or even "MacOS" really. The realities of funds will dictate some of the options available. I might not buy an Windows Server Datacenter license but if it allows me to avoid the hassles of re-installs and the other software is the same I might buy a Windows 7 license.

I'm guessing that what runs in all the top layer VMs will be of little consequence. I just need something for the different ESXi instances to toss back and forth. Does that sound about right? Or do I need something specific in these top layer VMs to play with some feature of ESXi?

blargoe

MS Virtual PC still doesn't support x64 guests, I think.

I'll still recommend the "all in a box" solution at the most versatile and best bang for the buck. You can get a fully functional lab with all features on which you would be tested for only the price of the hardware, if you use evaluation versions of vSphere, VMware Workstation, and a free Linux distro. Memory is cheap these days. You can get a system with a quad-core CPU and 16 GB RAM that would be more than enough for a two-host ESXi cluster. Now that I think about it, I would make use of that second 32-bit PC if you have it laying around. You will need some shared storage to use for the cluster, and you could use that old PC as an NFS and iSCSI server... you'd need Gig Ethernet for that to be viable.


so
_____________

VM|VM|VM|VM
_____________

ESXi | ESXi
_____________

VMware Wkstn
_____________

Host OS on Metal
(Windows or Linux) <

---

Physical Network

---

> Storage Server
_______________


Which host OS? If you're totally unfamiliar with Linux, I'd go with Windows so you're not having to fight learning two things at the same time. It would need to be a 64-bit edition of Windows. May as well go Windows 7. If you're Ok with Linux, just use whichever distro you're comfortable with (needs to be 64 bit). Either one will run VMware Workstation just fine.

MentholMoose

MacGuffin wrote: »

I realize the "tone of my voice" does not translate well over the printed word so don't take this the wrong way but I know that is what I can do. The question is, what is the preferable thing to do? Put another way, what did you do and why did you choose that setup?

Any of the vSphere in a box options I mentioned should work well. IMO there is no option that is clearly the best for everyone, and it mainly comes down to personal preference with various minor considerations.

The free ESXi can be used, but there is potential hassle and expense associated with getting a lab machine that can run ESXi, and the machine cannot be used as a desktop with ESXi installed. If you want to use the lab machine as a desktop, and/or don't want to deal with hardware issues, you can use a desktop with a desktop-oriented hypervisor (VMware Workstation, Player, or Fusion). Buy or build a desktop or laptop and install Windows or Linux, or buy a Mac, depending on your preference. If you buy a computer it will probably come with a Windows license, but if it doesn't a Windows Server eval can go 6 months without requiring a reinstall so there's not too much need to buy a Windows license.

On that lab machine running some desktop OS, you can buy and run Workstation/Fusion, use a Workstation/Fusion eval, or use the free VMware Player (Windows and Linux only). Since passing the VCP gets you a free Workstation license, I'd be hesitant about buying it, and would make every effort toward using the eval or Player. I have used Player in the past, though not for the VCP, and it works fine, and the newer versions let you create VMs so it shouldn't be any hassle.

I chose a physical lab when studying for the VCP4 for various reasons. For one, at the time, there was no hypervisor (that I knew of) that could provide VMs with the CPU virtualization extensions that ESXi requires to run 64-bit VMs, and I wanted to lab as many of the vSphere components as possible. Additionally, I already had some ESXi-compatible hardware, so it wasn't like I was building out a complete lab from scratch. I used the same hardware to play with the vSphere 5 beta and RC, so I used it for studying the VCP5.

MacGuffin wrote: »

I see many options for what sits on the metal. There's ESXi and Hyper-V as hypervisors. For emulators I see VMWare Workstation/Player/Fusion or VirtualBox on top of Windows, Linux, or MacOS. There's VirtualPC on Windows but I do not recall anyone taking this option, why is that? Those I just mentioned are probably the most common but there is also QEMU, KVM, Xen, and probably more. Some of these options are stepping too far out of my comfort zone and so I'd need some compelling reason to consider them.

AFAIK only VMware hypervisors (ESXi, Workstation, Fusion, Player) can provide VMs with CPU virtualization extensions (AMD-V or Intel VT-x), which is required for best results with VCP labbing. Even if others can do it, using a VMware hypervisor is preferable since running ESXi as a VM on them is basically supported by VMware, it well documented, and known to work. Using a non-VMware hypervisor might be a hassle or might not work at all.

MacGuffin

blargoe wrote: »

...
Now that I think about it, I would make use of that second 32-bit PC if you have it laying around. You will need some shared storage to use for the cluster, and you could use that old PC as an NFS and iSCSI server... you'd need Gig Ethernet for that to be viable.

This is a point where I'm a bit ignorant, what sort of NFS and iSCSI software is out there? I've heard of Openfiler, is this a good solution? I'm not sure I can manage GigE on both ends of the network, I'll need to see what I have in the pile in my basement.

Keep in mind I have more than one PC I could use from my pile. I'm assuming I can use Windows XP to run the vSphere client, is that a correct assumption?

I'm thinking I might setup one computer as the file server, another to run any management software I'll need, and the new computer to run the EXSi instances. I'll probably just pretend the server is headless even if it is not. This would require a wee bit more thought on my part making this a more realistic exercise.

MentholMoose wrote: »

Any of the vSphere in a box options I mentioned should work well. IMO there is no option that is clearly the best for everyone, and it mainly comes down to personal preference with various minor considerations.

I do have my own personal preferences and I'm trying to be intentionally vague as to what they are to avoid getting confirmation instead of information. I'm pretty sure about what might work for me but I'd like to hear about some of these minor considerations that took you down that path you chose, this is not directed at MentholMoose only.

MentholMoose wrote: »

AFAIK only VMware hypervisors (ESXi, Workstation, Fusion, Player) can provide VMs with CPU virtualization extensions (AMD-V or Intel VT-x), which is required for best results with VCP labbing. Even if others can do it, using a VMware hypervisor is preferable since running ESXi as a VM on them is basically supported by VMware, it well documented, and known to work. Using a non-VMware hypervisor might be a hassle or might not work at all.

This makes sense. In my own research I have run across some people that did have trouble with ESXi on Virtualbox. I'll agree that hosting ESXi on a non-VMWare emulator may be more trouble than it is worth. Since there are free VMWare products available there is no monetary reason inhibiting this choice.

I did some experimentation with Openfiler and FreeNAS and found them a bit lacking. FreeNAS would install but had trouble booting, this is on both real and virtual machines. I got Openfiler to run but the web interface is a bit difficult to navigate and incredibly slow for some reason. I'll click on a link and it'd take minutes to finish loading. I doubt this is a hardware issue as it ran Ubuntu just fine before.

What other options for a storage server should I consider?

I remember looking at standalone storage server appliances some time ago. I recall some of them were not terribly expensive as they were BYOD, bring your own disk. I have some drives sitting around here that I could put in them.

There's all kinds of stuff on the internet about installing ESXi on all kinds of hardware and on all kinds of emulators but not so much about actually getting a useful lab running, storage servers, clients, virtual machines, and all.

QHalo

If you're going with a standalone appliance, look at QNAP and Synology. I have a TS-459 Pro II and it does both NFS and iSCSI. Lots of good comments on either brand.

MacGuffin

Thinking about my storage server some more I'm now reluctant to buy a standalone server. Getting one might be the easiest solution but I already have quite the pile of hardware in my basement. A couple weeks ago I sorted through some of it and came up with quite the pile to go off to recycling. I might have to redefine what is salvageable and make another pile, but that's a discussion for another day.

Anyway, point is that I have plenty of hardware to play with. It's not the highest caliber stuff but I should be able to find some combination of hardware and software suitable of serving as a storage server. I tried Openfiler and found it a bit difficult to work with. If I gave it more time I might get it to work for me. I tried FreeNAS but for some reason I could not get it to boot once installed on real hardware. I got it to work in a virtual machine but with the NAT provided by the emulator in the way I could not access the server from another machine.

I found a free iSCSI product from Starwind that on the web page describing the product claims that it can be installed on any modern Windows product but after trying it on Windows XP and failing I did some more research. From what I can see the product only works on a Windows Server OS. Which brings me back to this comment...

If you buy a computer it will probably come with a Windows license, but if it doesn't a Windows Server eval can go 6 months without requiring a reinstall so there's not too much need to buy a Windows license.

Well this computer I have did come with a Windows license but not the right kind. Having looked at my options of hardware, new, used, build, beg, borrow, or steal, I'm leaning towards options that do not include a Windows license as a matter of cost. There is certainly not a Windows Server license in the mix because of cost. As MentholMoose points out, as does Starwind on their website, Microsoft does offer evaluation licenses for a limited time and the Hyper-V product is free for all users. This is certainly an option on new hardware.

Here's what I'd like to know, is there a evaluation, education, Hyper-V like feature limited, or other free to use Windows OS for 32 bit systems? It appears that Microsoft no longer supports their 32 bit server products. Unless there is some sort of secret handshake I could try it appears that these Windows based products won't be available, or at least not cheap.

I was looking at different server options and the Apple Mac Mini Server is looking pretty nice. It can host the ESXi server and it comes with what looks like some very easy to use, and not time or feature limited, server software that supports NFS.

Anyway, this is just another brain **** to show where I'm at and kick some ideas around. I'm open to more ideas and I really appreciate the ideas provided so far.

NISMO1968

MacGuffin wrote: »

I found a free iSCSI product from Starwind that on the web page describing the product claims that it can be installed on any modern Windows product but after trying it on Windows XP and failing I did some more research. From what I can see the product only works on a Windows Server OS. Which brings me back to this comment...

What you say is not true... Windows XP can be used to run StarWind management console but cannot be used to run a service application (reason is simple - XP is VERY old so Win32 API subset is truncated, nobody wants to backport very complex and heavy application to satisfy 0.000001% of free users still with XP). But you can use more recent versions of desktop OSes like Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 of corse to run both management console and service app itself. And of course StarWind runs on top of Server Core and inside parent partition of an absolutely free Hyper-V server (MS EULA allows running software without a license if you use this software to manage virtual machines or provide virtualization related services - exactly what StarWind iSCSI SAN & NAS does).

Hope this helped

-nismo

*note: fixed quoted reply format.

MentholMoose

MacGuffin wrote: »

I did some experimentation with Openfiler and FreeNAS and found them a bit lacking. FreeNAS would install but had trouble booting, this is on both real and virtual machines. I got Openfiler to run but the web interface is a bit difficult to navigate and incredibly slow for some reason. I'll click on a link and it'd take minutes to finish loading. I doubt this is a hardware issue as it ran Ubuntu just fine before.

What other options for a storage server should I consider?

I've never had any problems with Openfiler. I've run it in VMs and on various hardware with no issues. I guess you could try updating it after installation (run "conary updateall") since there may be an update that resolves the issue you're seeing.

Anyway, if Ubuntu works on the server you want to use for storage, you can probably just use Ubuntu. Setting up an NFS share on Linux is simple and setting up an iSCSI target is not much more difficult.

MacGuffin

NISMO1968 wrote: »

What you say is not true... Windows XP can be used to run StarWind management console but cannot be used to run a service application (reason is simple - XP is VERY old so Win32 API subset is truncated, nobody wants to backport very complex and heavy application to satisfy 0.000001% of free users still with XP). But you can use more recent versions of desktop OSes like Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 of corse to run both management console and service app itself. And of course StarWind runs on top of Server Core and inside parent partition of an absolutely free Hyper-V server (MS EULA allows running software without a license if you use this software to manage virtual machines or provide virtualization related services - exactly what StarWind iSCSI SAN & NAS does).

Hope this helped

-nismo

*note: fixed quoted reply format.

Yes and no. I found out after I posted the comment above more details on the system requirements on the Starwind software and I found that Starwind has a different idea on what defines a "modern Windows OS" than I do. While running the management software on an XP computer is possible it does me no good without another Windows computer to run the server. I see no reason to install the management software on anything other that the computer running the server.

The computers I can spare as storage servers do not have anything newer than Windows XP. All these computers were given to me at some time because they were halfway broken by the previous owner, with one exception. The exception to this rule is a Dell server and is the only computer capable of running any kind of modern hypervisor, and even that is questionable. Since I was able to get ESXI to install, finally, I'd like to keep it that way if I can. Since the CPUs in this box does not support VT, and it has only 2 GB of RAM, I am limited in what storage software I could run even if that is what I wanted to do.

Since these computers are already halfway broken I do not wish to invest anything into them of any real value. IOW, I'm not going to update the OS. I'll buy a new computer first.

Once I get my hands on some new hardware I might turn the Dell server into a storage server but for now I'm using it to do some experimentation with ESXI until I can get some "real" hardware. I told myself that I wouldn't spend too much time on this since I have other, more pressing, things to do. I work on this when I need a break from my other studies and tasks so it could be weeks before I resolve this, or even spend any meaningful time on it.

MacGuffin

MentholMoose wrote: »

I've never had any problems with Openfiler. I've run it in VMs and on various hardware with no issues. I guess you could try updating it after installation (run "conary updateall") since there may be an update that resolves the issue you're seeing.

Anyway, if Ubuntu works on the server you want to use for storage, you can probably just use Ubuntu. Setting up an NFS share on Linux is simple and setting up an iSCSI target is not much more difficult.

I will admit that I didn't give Openfiler much of a chance. I just didn't want to spend too much time on getting a storage server to work. Turns out I probably wasted more time on breaking and fixing another computer than if I just stuck with Openfiler to begin with.

I thought of running an NFS share on an Ubuntu server at some point but have not yet followed through with testing that possibility. I have no idea why I did not think of it sooner as I did NFS shares on Linux before, many years ago. I guess I was stuck on the idea of iSCSI for some reason.

Just so I don't go down some wrong path again could someone remind me of something? I realize this is something I can look up so I'll follow with a question that is more relevant to this discussion. I seem to recall that ESXI 5 supported three different protocols for remote storage, do I recall correctly? If so then what is the third protocol besides NFS and iSCSI? That's the question I can look up on my own so here's the one that I cannot, what software do you know of that supports this protocol and have you used it yourself? If you have used something other than iSCSI and NFS then how did it work out for you?

I also seem to recall that there is a reason that I don't recall anything besides NFS and iSCSI. It's because anything besides NFS and iSCSI is deprecated and therefore a rarity for any new install. Does that sound about right?

MentholMoose

The other major protocol is Fibre Channel. It is widely used in enterprises, but not so much for VCP studies since it requires specialized hardware (e.g. FC HBAs for the servers, a FC switch, and a SAN that supports FC) and it is not critical to have labbed it for the exam. In my experience, memorizing a few FC terms and commands is pretty much all that is required for the VCP (I certainly did not buy the required hardware when studying for the VCP).

A datastore on a FC LUN looks similar to a datastore using the software iSCSI initiator (both use VMFS). If you want to lab iSCSI, I would assume Ubuntu can be used. It is definitely possible to setup an iSCSI target with CentOS and Fedora.