Virtual vs actual server

[sar_man]

My IT dept. has approached me about moving us a actual server to a virtual server. This server is exclusive to my department and applications that are not used anywhere else. Most of our applications are low load items. The one application that uses any resources is a network mapping program (not ESRI) that stores the map images and orthos on the server.

What are the pro and cons between the two?

[bigmike82]

For you? You probably won't notice a difference.

For your IT guys, the benefits are immense. They have the ability to better back up the system, maintain it more easily and better integrate it into their server fabric.

As long as they can guarantee you acceptable performance, I'd recommend agreeing to the virtualization.

[ibanezfoo]

My IT dept. has approached me about moving us a actual server to a virtual server. This server is exclusive to my department and applications that are not used anywhere else. Most of our applications are low load items. The one application that uses any resources is a network mapping program (not ESRI) that stores the map images and orthos on the server.

What are the pro and cons between the two?

I'm virtualizing a lot of our servers as I type this... (VMware... we aren't too keen on M$, especially after they just reamed us during one of their infamous audits) That is also why I've been posting so much lately.

If they do it "right", you won't notice anything, and it may even go faster.

Pros: Less rack space, easier to manage, potentially faster (if using old hardware, the new VM server should be way faster if they provision better resources), ability to more easily watch real world performance and tailor resources to it. More uptime if they build the SAN part and network infrastructure correctly. For us, several servers that I've virtualized have been significantly faster than they were on the old stand alone hardware.

Cons: Expensive to do "right". Could be slower if they pile too much stuff onto a host (eg "server sprawl"). Lots of eggs in one basket, if its not done right as far as replication and backups and that hardware fails everything goes with it.

I'm still a major skeptic of virtualization. Too many people throwing around too many buzzwords... way too many sales folks involved. Too many tech peers with a bunch of solutions that are "the one and only way to do it" (which is a common trait among us unfortunately...). But, its mandated by the bosses that this happens so its my job to see it through. I've got a setup that seems to work for us and slowly my skepticism is eroding.

[Nose Nuggets]

from a management perspective, VMs are a lot easier to maintain. and if one blows up its a lot easier to redeploy.

[odysseus]

You won't have a job long or go anywhere in the IT data center if you are against virtualization. That skepticism expired in like 2004. Of course now where you put the data, i.e. 3rd party cloud, can be argued, but all common sense and now practice, outside though of some good exceptions, dictate better use of your server resources by stacking them virtually.

[Deadbolt]

good stuff. No reason not to do it. Cost of "doing it right" is no more than doing "physical" right - the difference is you shift hardware upkeep costs over to management costs ( the VM console is really easy - so easy in fact, it would make more sense to get a 40/k year community college grad to admin it than ask your 75k/ seniors that used to manage the physical box(s) ).

Any reasonable plan should make sense and in terms of security - there were flaws in the system whereas if one vmserver was breached, the attacker could have access to all other instances on that box. That was changed in a patch a good 2-3years ago and there haven't been security issues since really.

only reason AGAINST virtual servers : if one of your IT admins goes ape - they will have to take it out on the water cooler, instead of the server rack.

this is a disappointment to all IT admins

[bartt]

Virtualization is the way to go.
I use it for servers and development systems, keeps em small, clean, and separate from each other. Much easier to back up and hardware failure proof.
Try Virtual Box if you want to play with the concept yourself.

[2shotjoe]

Virtual box get a virus, delete it and start up a new copy.
actual server getting a virus, wipe hdd's and reinstall everything.

[Deadbolt]

Virtual box get a virus, delete it and start up a new copy.
actual server getting a virus, wipe hdd's and reinstall everything.

well nooooooo as a blanket statement but correct that there are more steps of recourse to take before a full wipe.

Really it depends how well the VM environment is setup by the staff. At it's "simple" install base, it is still highly secure, but there are many additional steps you can take to further isolate each individual image/server

ymmv

[JDay]

from a management perspective, VMs are a lot easier to maintain. and if one blows up its a lot easier to redeploy.

VMWare allows you to migrate a live system to another machine without skipping a beat. Its pretty slick to watch in action.

[Nose Nuggets]

indeed, VMWare makes my pants tight.

[ibanezfoo]

VMWare allows you to migrate a live system to another machine without skipping a beat. Its pretty slick to watch in action.

Sort of... if they share the same SAN back end. Otherwise you sit there waiting for while it copies over. Its kind of false advertising the way they sell this feature.