|
Moey posted:Hahaha. Running a production VoIP server within Workstation? Oh god audio in workstation is terrible. I tried to run a radio station (using liquid soap and icecast). icecast running in the VM caused the stream to crash every 15-20 minutes complaining about hardware access. Running liquidsoap in the VM caused occasional delays but the buffer was big enough to handle it and throw warnings. None of these issues happened using the same setup on the host OS. This was a personal project so running icecast on the host ended up being acceptable.
|
# ¿ Feb 23, 2016 18:36 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 01:20 |
|
DoublePLayer posted:I tried getting Hyper-V to work, but it kept claiming the hypervisor feature is not running and I couldn't figure out where's the fuckup. You need to enable virtualization in BIOS most likely.
|
# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 13:04 |
|
If you are passing as USB device to an older OS make sure the device supports that OS. Getting an Xbox controller to work with say Windows 98 doesn't sound as easy as an old serial Gravis.
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2016 05:15 |
|
I'm looking to implement Hyper-V using local storage (SAN isn't in the budget). Should the host have it's own drives or should I just make a large RAID10 and partition it out? I'm leaning towards 8 Drive RAID10, but thought I'd get a second opinion. Full environment is going to be 2 hosts with Veeam doing backups to a NAS. Restore using the backup is considered acceptable(both potential data loss and downtime). If there is a better way to configure this with the same hardware though I can make the adjustments since nothing is purchased yet.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2016 20:33 |
|
Internet Explorer posted:
I'm looking to P2V a small company, and planning on exactly this. Veeam + Synology for backup, I believe you can even run the VM from backup while Veeam is restoring it, reducing downtime to basically human reaction of pressing restore. It very likely wont be running that well, but anything critical with a heavy workload you should instead run a VM on each host and do redundancy as if you didn't have VMs if at all possible.
|
# ¿ May 11, 2016 21:16 |
|
NippleFloss posted:If you're doing the paid VEEAM version you can use replication to provide quicker recovery of VMs between the two hosts with local storage. Veeam isn't that much if you don't care about updating it. Just buy a new version when you replace the servers and let support lapse.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2016 13:54 |
|
Moey posted:Support is normally less than 20% of licensing cost for Veeam. You run your servers for more than 5 years? I don't have a quote for a renew, but Veeam's site said a savings of 20%, if it's at 20% cost then that changes my opinion of letting it lapse. Running a 5 year old version when it's that little to maintain doesn't make much sense.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2016 14:38 |
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:What's this now? I haven't bothered following the MS licensing changes since we just slap Datacenter on everything by default. With 2016 its by core not socket. Minimum of 8 cores per socket, 2 sockets per host are required to be licensed. If you have a standard install of 2 8 core sockets nothing changes if you have 2 10 cores you have to buy more licenses. If you haves less no savings for you! This also makes AMD even worse since any savings will now actually cost you more for the OS licenses. I get a feeling this was prompted by Intel to try and push AMD even further out of the market since their gimmick is more cores (which is actually useful for hosting VMs). This assumes AMD can actually make a CPU worth a drat this gen.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2016 17:58 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 01:20 |
|
Internet Explorer posted:Yeah, I can see that. Hopefully the price will be reasonable and the upgrade process from a licensing standpoint will be straightforward. You can apparently buy 2 core upgrade packs, also if you have a software assurance plan contact them before 2016 comes out, you can get your licenses for 2016 to match your current configuration with 2012R2.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2016 18:30 |