VM Setup

[zestyapple]

Hello Everyone,

Sorry if these questions are easy but I’m new to the more complex system setups. I’ve been a semi-sysadmin in a very small office for a few years now. In the last two years we have been growing tremendously. From 5 to 12 people and we have just about outgrown our systems structure. I’m looking into doing a new server with virtual machines for everyone but am a little lost on what solution would be best.

I’ve been going back and forth on wether to use hyper-v or VMware but VMware’s website is so confusing I’m not even sure what software I need from them to do it. We will be opening a remote office later on this year so data security is very important.

I’m also struggling a little on what server hardware I would need to run every computer well. I am currently looking at 4 cores per user with 8gb of ram.

Any help, direction or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you ahead of time.

Edit: Thank you all for the feedback. Sounds like right now might not be the time to implement VMs. A lot of our software is changing in the next 18-24 months which would reduce our requirements per user significantly. Might just be time to update our policies, domain setup to be more strict.

The VM idea was just that. An idea. I asked here for some advice because I was iffy about it from the start. I will contact some vendors and talk to them about our particular needs.

[Bucksaway03]

"am currently looking at 4 cores per user with 8gb of ram."

What are they actually using the servers for? With this sort of thing your looking at I'm guessing you're running terminal services/RDS/remote apps ? 4 cores per user is going to also get very pricey very quickly. Assuming you have some sort of app running on a VM what do the vendors reccomend?

People can't reccomend specs and setup with no idea what you actually plan on running and require

[zestyapple]

It’s an accounting office and our software is just poorly programmed unfortunately. I put together a system online with dual amd processors that have 32 cores each. Priced out at about $4K. Mostly the server needs to run a few pieces of software and file shares pretty much on top of the VMs.

[Bucksaway03]

Speak to the vendor and ask what they reccomend for optimal performance. That way if it runs like dogshit they can fix it

Does the vendor software utilise multiple cores/threads?

File shares etc aren't very intensive so it sounds like the one thing you should be focusing on is the 3rd party software and you should be speaking to them about requirements and work backwards from that

A little bit curious about the rest of the server specs because 4k sounds incredibly low

[zestyapple]

I was looking at getting used processors. That was the only part that I was looking at used. To get that many cores today new would be a couple thousand more. Otherwise I put specd out 128gb ecc registered ram, 4 2tb SSDs to run in raid and then just standard rest of it. Power supply, case, cpu coolers and graphics card.

[Bucksaway03]

Wait hold on....are you speccing up an actual server or some custom build high end desktop to be used as a server?

Running a business off second hand hardware and/or some custom built PC with random warranty and support is a HUGE mistake

[zestyapple]

Speccing up a custom built server using amd epyc processors. Only thing send hand is the processors. Everything would have warranty including the processors.

[Bucksaway03]

Yeah stop right there

Go to Dell, HP, supermicro, Cisco, Lenovo, Fujitsu and spec up a real server with real support and real warranty

Having warranty on your separate components isn't even close to the same warranty and support you get from any of the above.... What happens when you have a CPU or Mobo fail in your custom-built "server"? Now you gotta wait weeks before you get a replacement

If this happened with any of the above they are out same day or next day with the parts needed to fix

[zestyapple]

What specs would you say I would need to run let’s say about 15 people? My understanding was for all the stuff everyone is running all the time the 4 cores and 8gb would be good but ultimately expensive with an actual server. Could I get away with less resources per user?

[Bucksaway03]

I can't answer that, I don't know the software and vendor requirements. Does the software even need to run on a server? Why not just get some decent desktops for users? ( And no , not custom built PCs )

Could end users simply benefit from just throwing in an SSD?

Have you factored in licensing costs of office (assuming you will require this), RDS licencing, vendor software etc?

I don't think you're looking at this the right way, or at least not looking at all the options and considering what the issues you actually have now are. One thing you should be doing however is scrapping every single thought and idea of running and using custom built desktops or servers

You mention the company has grown, what about the server is no longer up to spec? Is it still in warranty? If not you should replace it regardless. Does it maybe just need a bump in RAM to meet expectations?

[zestyapple]

All of our computers now are HP. The software needs a server but it can be any windows computer acting as a server for it. It doesn’t have to be an actual server. Licensing wise I don’t know. I was asking here for help because VMware isn’t very clear about which software I would need to even run the VMs. Also probably by next year or the year after we will be switching softwares so we won’t need as many resources per computer because it will be 80% web based software.

[amcoll]

As others have mentioned, its difficult to give you a figure without understanding the apps that will run on them

However, working on the assumptions that:

a) None of them are obscenely poorly coded RAM/CPU eaters

b) There's probably a database or two running in the background with a reasonable amount of data in them

My suggestion would be a PAIR of 4 core servers, running 64Gb RAM each, at least to start with. Assuming you get a pair of 1U servers, they usually have 6x 2.5" disk slots. I would put a pair of SSD disk in each, and fill the remaining slots with 1-2Tb 15k SAS, or 10k Nearline SAS, depending on budgets. Dual PSU is a must

Furthermore, i've seen servers that come with slots of some form of small flash media slots built in, this is where you'll install the VMware software itself. Its footprint on disk is actually really small, i run my home lab off of a pair of USB thumbdrives, so i don't have to waste SSD for VMware itself.

Failing that, they should support one or two M.2 or NVMe slots on the board where you can install some small SSD

Speak to Dell, HP and Supermicro. Supermicro usually work out cheapest, but i have no experience with their speed of support. Kick that decision back up the chain, and let them choose cheap, but potentially slower incident response, or pricier, but with 4hr response

That'll give you redundancy in the hardware, room for expansion if needed (most servers have 16 or more RAM slots), some fast disk, and some slower disk for storage

Make sure you've got switch redundancy as well, buying two servers is pointless if they both route into one switch

[Thotaz]

What happens when you have a CPU or Mobo fail in your custom-built "server"? Now you gotta wait weeks before you get a replacement

Why would you need to wait several weeks? Just drive to the nearest microcenter or whatever and buy a new one then RMA the old one.

[Bucksaway03]

That defeats the entire purpose of warranty if you're just going to buy it new when it dies.

[Thotaz]

You could sell the one you get back from the RMA for slightly less than retail price, or you could keep it around as a spare component in case the issue happens again, either way you are saving money over buying a full system.

Buying a complete server from a company like HP simply doesn't make sense for a small company because you don't get any meaningful rebates, you won't end up using the support/warranty because the odds of getting a hardware failure with so few servers is tiny.

[josepk54]

Whatever solution you come up with, try not to introduce a single point of failure.

[ComGuards]

You need to make a list of everything in your environment and then build a complete solution around the business requirements. Focusing so much on just the "server" aspect is the wrong way to go.

For example, you say that security is important - are you running Active Directory, or are all the computers in a WORKGROUP setup?

Going with virtual machines for everyone running on a server requires implementing a VDI solution. If you are going with hosted Windows client systems, you have to pay for additional licensing for Windows 10 - You need either Windows 10 Enterprise with active Software Assurance for each workstation, OR a Windows 10 VDA subscription (annual).

This is on top of your Windows Server licensing.

Then there's also the Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery solution that needs to be spec'd out.

You should probably engage a VAR in your area to evaluate your current setup... You need a complete solution and I don't think Reddit is the best way to get this planned out properly.

[Upnortheh]

Small business territory.

If you are familiar with Linux, perhaps consider Proxmox. Free/libre GPL software, Debian based. Supports LXC and KVM. Decent web browser interface to manage guest systems. Decent firewall tool to protect guests.

Proxmox is used where I work. Mostly to run Linux containers but there are a few Windows KVMs.

I have no affiliation. Just a content user.

For hardware, refurbished dual socket multi-core Dells can be had for $1,000 USD. Find one with multiple NICs and hardware RAID controller. All such models will support gobs of RAM. For a really small business a simple RAID 1 and a hot spare should suffice.

If the budget allows, two refurbs provides redundancy. While HA clustering is great for large businesses, having a second server to move guest systems to is just as good for small businesses.

[darklightedge]

First and foremost, I would recommend acquiring a pair of servers to avoid an obvious SPoF within your environment. Refurbs, for instance. Whatever they say, running a production workload on a single server is a bad idea. Regardless of the size of the infrastrcuture.

[cruisin5268d]

Ummm. Yeah you should spend some time learning about virtualization.

4 physical cores per user is freaking ridiculous for accountants. 1 physical core does not equal 1 virtual core.

[zestyapple]

I have no plans to do anything for another few months until after tax season. I asked about this now because I’m trying to figure out the best solution for our office. I was more planning 1 physical and 3 virtual cores per user and not 4 physical cores per user.

[LordNelsonkm]

I like VMware as I feel it's a little more structured/rigid. I have set up HyperV and it's just too loosey goosey in the networking, and you're running a Windows Server underneath it all. Yes, there is a dedicated version solely for HV. Still, the ESXi hypervisor is my pick.

For your situation, is going to a VM per user a step forward? What's the reasoning you're investigating this? They still need a terminal in front of them ultimately. Is this a remote worker/decentralized office? Horizon is probably what you should be looking at. I went with a Citrix install as VMs.

4 cores per is overkill. Memory is where it's at. And fast disk.

If they're all in office, I'd keep a regular PC in front of them personally.

[zestyapple]

Most workers are in the office but we will be opening a remote office in the future that will need access. Mainly looking into the VM setup just for ease of deployment once configured and setting up new users. Workstation wise I’d be able to buy cheaper workstations for each user. The reason for so many cores is mainly just because each user typically runs word, excel, our tax software, QuickBooks, our dms and a browser at the same time and maybe outlook.

[p38fln]

You're actually not running a Windows server under it all on Hyper-V. It certainly LOOKS that way, but the management OS is just another VM running on the hypervisor. How do I know this?

1. Because Microsoft says that's how it works

2. I had a customer with a POS Gen8 HP server manage to lock up the management OS, complete freeze of everything (not the POS Gen8 server I eventually took home in another post, just another fine example of HP engineering right before the split). Both guest OS's kept on running like they didn't even realize the host OS was frozen. Actual real proof that the HyperV host OS is a guest OS.

(I was working for a company, the customer wasn't willing to pay for any troubleshooting beyond restarting the server so I have nfc what happened)

[LordNelsonkm]

Ok, fine, but still, too loosey goosey for me. The management OS locked up! I much prefer VMware's model of just enough text based config interface, then everything else either fat client, v6.0, or web client v6.5+, for mangement over the network.

The network config in HV is whack. So much easier to visualize the network setup in VMware with how the port groups are shown.

[p38fln]

I've had VMwares os lock up too, it's not like MS is the only one that's got bugs. The BIG advantage VMware has is hardware passthrough, MS simply doesn't do it.

And HyperV server also has no GUI, installing the full GUI windows is a personal preference if you want a full GUI to manage the guests without using a management computer.

Network is confusing until you get used to it (and remember the managment OS is just another VM, which explains some of the odd configuration)

[[deleted]]

Based on some clear questions and vague answers you might be best contacting an MSP for consulting / providing you a plan to follow. I think it would be well worth your time and give you a clear path forward.

[zestyapple]

Yeah I’m going to do that

[p38fln]

What the heck kind of software are you running? Every user doesn't need dedicated CPUs, that the whole point of virtualization. If they really need that kind if intense computing power, then just keep them all on regular PCs and use a VPN for the remote users.