Hardware advice

[PaulVM]

Hi,
new Proxmox install; I want use this installation as "all-in-one" server for the LAN infrastructure.
So I want use a Proxmox box to run:
- a VM mail server (KVM, Debian), (100 GB)
- a Win 2003 VM (migration of current physical that host same legacy applications), (60 GB)
- a CentOS VM (KVM), for testing porpouse (50 GB)

And use the physical host as File Server (Samba) + Domain controller for LAN PCs. (3-4 TB)

Any advice on the hardware?

I am evaluating if it is better a server like IBM x3650 with 6x2 TB SATA HDDs (RAID card), or using an external NAS.

Thanks, P.

 

[PaulVM]

Am I the only one with these needs?

Thanks, P.

 

[udo]

Hi,
new Proxmox install; I want use this installation as "all-in-one" server for the LAN infrastructure.
So I want use a Proxmox box to run:
- a VM mail server (KVM, Debian), (100 GB)
- a Win 2003 VM (migration of current physical that host same legacy applications), (60 GB)
- a CentOS VM (KVM), for testing porpouse (50 GB)

OK

And use the physical host as File Server (Samba) + Domain controller for LAN PCs. (3-4 TB)

You create an virtualisation host - you should use them!
If you need virtualisation with an low foot-print use OpenVZ.

Any advice on the hardware?

CPU-Power is often not the bottlenek (depends on your purpose, of course) but many memory and a good (fast) IO-Subsystem is very important.

I am evaluating if it is better a server like IBM x3650 with 6x2 TB SATA HDDs (RAID card), or using an external NAS.

Thanks, P.

If you need speed, go for raid-10 with sas-disks (and a fast raid-controller). Sata-disks are ok for the huge data...
A NAS is nice, if you extend your pve-solution to an cluster - so you can use live-migration and so on (very very usefull). Depends on the virtualisation technology and storage (kvm/openvz; iScsi, NFS, LVM or local mounted filesystem...).

But you can also use local-storage for livemigration with DRBD...

There are plenty of possibilities.


Udo

 

[PaulVM]

You create an virtualisation host - you should use them!
If you need virtualisation with an low foot-print use OpenVZ.

Tried in the past the turnkey-fileserver template. I am not a OpenVZ guru, but it seems to me that a samba in the host is a simpler and better solution. It works fine and I can export some shares to the VMs via NFS very simply and very efficiently.

CPU-Power is often not the bottlenek (depends on your purpose, of course) but many memory and a good (fast) IO-Subsystem is very important.

Considered 16-32 GB RAM. The VM are currently 32 bit, so ...
Storage requirements based on capacity, not on speed, so any good controller can be Ok in my opinion.

If you need speed, go for raid-10 with sas-disks (and a fast raid-controller). Sata-disks are ok for the huge data...
A NAS is nice, if you extend your pve-solution to an cluster - so you can use live-migration and so on (very very usefull). Depends on the virtualisation technology and storage (kvm/openvz; iScsi, NFS, LVM or local mounted filesystem...).

I need at least 3-4 TB of disk space for data that are accessed rarely (90% historycal archives, 10% low frequency used working files; cad files or documentation that when completed are stored to the file-server and opened only for consultation). So I thinked to local-storage (growing about 0.5-1 TB/years).
No need for cluster at the moment, so I don't see advantages in using a NAS. Open to different opinions and to consider it

But you can also use local-storage for livemigration with DRBD...

This can be useful if in the future, a cluster will be activated ;-)

There are plenty of possibilities.

Yes ;-)
that is the reason why I ask for hints and/or for advice on specific hardware models of server/NAS to deploy this configuration ;-)

Thanks, P.

 

[drott]

Tried in the past the turnkey-fileserver template. I am not a OpenVZ guru, but it seems to me that a samba in the host is a simpler and better solution. It works fine and I can export some shares to the VMs via NFS very simply and very efficiently.


Considered 16-32 GB RAM. The VM are currently 32 bit, so ...
Storage requirements based on capacity, not on speed, so any good controller can be Ok in my opinion.



I need at least 3-4 TB of disk space for data that are accessed rarely (90% historycal archives, 10% low frequency used working files; cad files or documentation that when completed are stored to the file-server and opened only for consultation). So I thinked to local-storage (growing about 0.5-1 TB/years).
No need for cluster at the moment, so I don't see advantages in using a NAS. Open to different opinions and to consider it



This can be useful if in the future, a cluster will be activated ;-)


Yes ;-)
that is the reason why I ask for hints and/or for advice on specific hardware models of server/NAS to deploy this configuration ;-)

Thanks, P.

Except for the widnows kvm. using openvz is very simple and it has a significantly lower foot print than than the kvms. Running a mail server via a kvm and open vz are really no different except access to the data of the virtual machine aka CT is no different then accessing the right directory.

Hardware specs. What ever your budget can afford. As was noted earlier your biggest bottle kneck will be disk and bus io. Make sure you dont use fake raid array, get a good lsi or other raid card and that it has a good battery backed cache. SAS 15 k drives dual ported raid 10.

HP ml350 or dl360 series would work well. Get a minumum dual quads' 64 gb ram, and dont use the defualt raid controller. Get an 800 series with the largest cache flash ram. Hp is not fast on boot

read the forum and do model searches to see problems people are having. The most recent kernels fix a lot of broadcom issues but i would look at intel for your nick and do lacpmnfor redundant nick.