Hyper-V, Acronis vs. Veeam, physical vs. VM, etc.

[Kremlar]

Wanted to throw this out there and see what kind of comments/suggestions/feedback I get.

We have a variety of sites I'm going to be looking to upgrade going forward. Most locations are small to medium-sized, many have Exchange servers running 10-30 users, some as high as 100. Most are running Symantec Backup Exec.

Many will move to Office 365, but many will also want to keep Exchange in-house. Most will likely be single box installs running Windows Server 2012 R2 with Exchange running on a Hyper-V VM.

Some things I'm still considering:

- Whether to put AD/file/etc. services on the physical server install or put it on a VM as well, keeping the host OS very clean. Any opinions on that?

- Also, Microsoft license states that with a single 2012 R2 license (2 processor) you can have up to 2 VMs running the same licensed OS, but if you do have 2 the host OS install must be for administrative tasks only. I'm assuming that handling backup duties would fall under the "administrative tasks" description. Does anyone know if that's the case? Would installing backup software on the host OS to backup itself and the 2 running VMs be a licensing violation?

- For backup software I've been checking out Acronis Backup & Recovery 11.5, either the Hyper-V version or Advanced Server if we want Exchange aware backups (running the Exchange Agent). I see a lot of recommendations for Veeam, but have to say I've been very happy with Acronis so far. What does everyone love about Veeam over something like Acronis?

Any and all feedback appreciated!

 

[Kremlar]

No feedback?

 

[JackMDS]

While I am sure that your post make sense to you, it is very hard to follow everything on it in a logical manner.

E.g., Logically, if one is Not planning "to move to Office 365, but many will also want to keep Exchange in-house", then there is No reason to read the rest of the post.

If I were you I would divide it into 3 or 4 clear posts concerning singular issues.

 

[CubanlB]

- Whether to put AD/file/etc. services on the physical server install or put it on a VM as well, keeping the host OS very clean. Any opinions on that?

- Also, Microsoft license states that with a single 2012 R2 license (2 processor) you can have up to 2 VMs running the same licensed OS, but if you do have 2 the host OS install must be for administrative tasks only. I'm assuming that handling backup duties would fall under the "administrative tasks" description. Does anyone know if that's the case? Would installing backup software on the host OS to backup itself and the 2 running VMs be a licensing violation?

#1 really depends on the other AD infrastructure. If you have any services running on the host(Hyper-V) under domain credentials and the DC is a VM and not available on boot it can cause issues. I think "best practice" would say that you wouldn't want your hypervisor also doing domain services, but if you are trying to maximize the licensing it might be your only choice.

#2 Administrative tasks only basically means you can't run any other Microsoft server roles on the hypervisor without consuming a license. I would err on the side of keeping the hypervisor host as clear as possible, but that's just my personal opinion. I have never run Hyper-V in a production setting, only at home, but having my Hyper-V hosts come up before the DCs has caused a fair amount of headaches.

For backups I would use what you are familiar with unless its not meeting your needs for some reason.

 

[sourceninja]

Our SOP is to never run anything on the hyper-v servers. All services are provided via virtual machines. The only time we even talk about running physical servers is if the client can present a business case for making it physical. We have yet to have a client where the answer was physical AD/File/Whatever (although it is possible).

My advice, virtualize everything unless you can come up with a strong case as to why it must be physical (limited licensing, vendor support, etc)

 

[yinan]

Veeam is fing awesome. Give it enough space and it just works. Dedupes within the job as well. Stick the backup repo on Server 2012 and dedupe that volume and your are set

 

[Kremlar]

Thanks for the replies!

#1 really depends on the other AD infrastructure. If you have any services running on the host(Hyper-V) under domain credentials and the DC is a VM and not available on boot it can cause issues. I think "best practice" would say that you wouldn't want your hypervisor also doing domain services, but if you are trying to maximize the licensing it might be your only choice.

Thanks.. yeah, I realize best practice is to put the AD role on a separate box from the Hyper-V role. I also believe in, ideally, having at least one physical AD server on the network. Problem is in this scenario I only have 1 box to work with, so I can't have it both ways. User count is under 25 so performance wouldn't be an issue either way.

For backups I would use what you are familiar with unless its not meeting your needs for some reason.

Trying not to get stuck in that "familiarity" rut.

My advice, virtualize everything unless you can come up with a strong case as to why it must be physical (limited licensing, vendor support, etc)

I think you're probably right and I need to get in that mindset. I'm still very much a physical server kind of guy.

Veeam is fing awesome. Give it enough space and it just works. Dedupes within the job as well. Stick the backup repo on Server 2012 and dedupe that volume and your are set

I think I will need to make some time to give it a try.

 

[kevnich2]

Well if the host server will be just a single server at most locations, why not look at the free version of vmware? I recommend virtual (whether hyper-v or vmware) for all environments now. It's simply much easier to do things virtually than physical and I hate seeing servers that only run 5% of the hardware capacity.

As far as backups, if you are happy with acronis, then you will LOVE veeam. I was in the same boat until I tried veeam and after 6 months, I kicked acronis to the curb when it came to server vm backups. Veeam is almost a set it up once correctly with enough disk space for backups and for notifications in case something doesn't complete and you never have to worry about it, it just runs. I get emails if a backup job has any errors or warnings which I then correct but other than that, it can go weeks and as long as disk space is there, it runs wonderfully.

I would without a doubt recommend veeam for virtual machine backups

 

[yinan]

Another thing I love about Veeam is the ability to restore a single file from a backup without having to restore the whole VM.

 

[Kremlar]

Well if the host server will be just a single server at most locations, why not look at the free version of vmware?

I currently run ESXi in-house and like it, but currently do file level backups of my VMs (running Backup Exec). I thought backups using the free version of ESXi were quite limited? Am I incorrect?

Either way I'm really liking Hyper-V and 2012 R2 puts a "friendly face" on VMs which I like.

Another thing I love about Veeam is the ability to restore a single file from a backup without having to restore the whole VM.

I can do that with Acronis as well. But I'm definitely giving Veeam a look.

 

[imagoon]

I currently run ESXi in-house and like it, but currently do file level backups of my VMs (running Backup Exec). I thought backups using the free version of ESXi were quite limited? Am I incorrect?

Either way I'm really liking Hyper-V and 2012 R2 puts a "friendly face" on VMs which I like.




I can do that with Acronis as well. But I'm definitely giving Veeam a look.

They are pretty limited on Hyper-V free also. Installing a backup agent requires a license since it is an additional application if you want to backup the VHDs.

Veeam is a disk based backup that can restore the individual files. I still prefer VMWare to Hyper-V mostly because every time I have needed to work with either, most VMware stuff is quick and moderately easy while Hyper-V has been the mess of configuration and trial + error. I have not tried 2012 R2 yet however.

Also other than in the sales docs, I have yet to see a Hyper-V install actually be cheaper than VMWare when you finally get a system that is as close to apples to apples as you can get.

 

[kevnich2]

They are pretty limited on Hyper-V free also. Installing a backup agent requires a license since it is an additional application if you want to backup the VHDs.

Veeam is a disk based backup that can restore the individual files. I still prefer VMWare to Hyper-V mostly because every time I have needed to work with either, most VMware stuff is quick and moderately easy while Hyper-V has been the mess of configuration and trial + error. I have not tried 2012 R2 yet however.

Also other than in the sales docs, I have yet to see a Hyper-V install actually be cheaper than VMWare when you finally get a system that is as close to apples to apples as you can get.

There's also a happy feeling I get knowing my core system is running linux (vmware) vs windows. I trust linux for more back end systems operations than I do with windows. I've also heard of more spontanious reboots and quirky issues happening with hyper-v than I've heard with vmware. We've been running vmware for almost 3 years now and haven't had a single issue.

As far as restoring files, yes you can do that with acronis as well but veeam makes the process VERY simple and smooth. Trust me, I've used both and can honestly say I prefer veeam for virtualization backups but that's my opinion.

Also, for licensing with veeam, it's done per cpu socket that you want to backup. For example, if your host is a dual socket system, you pay for two veeam licenses. You don't pay per vm you want to backup, only per host. If you have two physical hosts that are both dual socket, you're paying for 4 licenses. This is where veeam becomes cheaper than acronis.

 

[Kremlar]

They are pretty limited on Hyper-V free also. Installing a backup agent requires a license since it is an additional application if you want to backup the VHDs.

Haven't used the free one yet so that's news to me, but in most instances I need a Windows OS license anyway. The nice thing about 2012 R2 is 1 purchase of the OS includes 2 VM licenses. I don't think I'd use Hyper-V if I wasn't loading a Windows VM.

I still prefer VMWare to Hyper-V mostly because every time I have needed to work with either, most VMware stuff is quick and moderately easy while Hyper-V has been the mess of configuration and trial + error. I have not tried 2012 R2 yet however.

If you have a moment I'd love to hear about what issues you've had with Hyper-V and what you've found better about VMWare.

Also other than in the sales docs, I have yet to see a Hyper-V install actually be cheaper than VMWare when you finally get a system that is as close to apples to apples as you can get.

Perhaps the difference is in the size of the implementation. Certainly not "cheaper" than free ESXi, but for the installs I'll be doing I buy 1 Windows Server 2012 R2 license and I get the host running the full Hyper-V role plus 2 activations for VMs. What scenarios have you found VMWare to be cheaper?

There's also a happy feeling I get knowing my core system is running linux (vmware) vs windows. I trust linux for more back end systems operations than I do with windows. I've also heard of more spontanious reboots and quirky issues happening with hyper-v than I've heard with vmware. We've been running vmware for almost 3 years now and haven't had a single issue.

My background is more Windows-centric so I guess I feel more comfortable that it's Windows.... kind of lame I guess!

 

[sourceninja]

My company specializes in Hyper-V and VMware deployments. I hold a VCP certification from VMWare.

Honestly there is very little difference between vmware and hyper-v in terms of features and capabilities. In fact you get more features from hyper-v than you do from the free vsphere hypervisor.

Given the choice for a small to mid sized business that runs primarily windows servers, I would recommend hyper-v. The features you get are amazing for the price, and if they already have system center the capabilities are on par with vsphere enterprise any day.

There is only one reason I personally use vsphere in my home server, you can not virtualize hypervisors on hyper-v. With vsphere hypervisor I can virtualize labs that include functioning hyper-v servers (for example testing out clustering features). This can not be done in hyper-v. I'm currently playing with openstack and would not be able to build a virtual openstack setup on hyper-v. Another lessor reason is that you can't do usb passthough on the host, something I do from time to time.

That said when we do free to "free" comparison (assuming you were going to run windows anyway and have a server 2012 license) hyper-v wins out everytime. You can install it as a full gui, configure it, then turn it into server core and reduce it's footprint to a tiny fraction of full blow windows, you have full features powershell for automation (read only powershell for vsphere free), you can do full live migration and storage migration (only matters if you have more than one server), and basically would need vmware vsphere enterprise to beat out the feature set.

I'm a linux guy. For the last 10 years my life has been solaris, redhat, debian, and vmware. I switched jobs recently to a shop that is mostly MS focused and I was really skeptical. Honestly Server 2012 is a rock solid operating system and hyper-v is a wonderful product. I love running on server core (I do all my servers with core when possible) and I love the flexibility of powershell, MS put a LOT of thought into powershell and almost everything is possible from there. If your not using server core (or at least minimal) and powershell your doing it wrong imho.

So anyways, if you want hyper-v use hyper-v. You can get great backup products (veeam, phdvirtual, unitrends, etc) some of which have free versions (unitrends allows you 8 virtual machines for free and is a pretty good backup appliance). You can even home grown something with powershell (vhd's can be mounted in windows as a disk, so file recovery is easy). With the exception of some pretty enterprise stuff or some minor things like the above mentioned virtualizing hypervisors for lab use there is really no reason not to use hyper-v (unless all you plan to run is linux....)

Is there some kind of mental institution I can check into for my growing love of windows server?

 

[imagoon]

There's also a happy feeling I get knowing my core system is running linux (vmware) vs windows.

It isn't running linux either

 

[imagoon]

Haven't used the free one yet so that's news to me, but in most instances I need a Windows OS license anyway. The nice thing about 2012 R2 is 1 purchase of the OS includes 2 VM licenses. I don't think I'd use Hyper-V if I wasn't loading a Windows VM.

This rule applies to ESXi. 1 Windows standard -> 2 Installed instances. Actually (I need to check if they changed this in 2012) You get 2 activations if and only if the base OS is not doing anything else. This includes backups etc so most Hyper-V systems blow a license on the base OS and then is only allowed 1 VM (standard license.) Windows Enterprise is identical on both systems from the licensing side.

If you have a moment I'd love to hear about what issues you've had with Hyper-V and what you've found better about VMWare.

Well there is the famous chicken and the egg issues with a virtual DC on Hyper-V. I think 2012 was supposed to fix that. Also setting up ESXi clusters, HA, and DRS is is basically 3 clicks, where Windows needed more stuff with clustering and extra app stuff.

Basically just about anything in ESXi tended to be easier and cleaner to install and configure.

Perhaps the difference is in the size of the implementation. Certainly not "cheaper" than free ESXi, but for the installs I'll be doing I buy 1 Windows Server 2012 R2 license and I get the host running the full Hyper-V role plus 2 activations for VMs. What scenarios have you found VMWare to be cheaper?

Just about all installs so far. Esp ESXi 5.1 / 5.5 Once the hosts hit a certain size (more than two sockets, 192GB of RAM) [again they changed this in 2012] the licensing goes to per socket the prices become almost identical.

On the low end you can pickup ESXi essentials for less that $1000 and get 3 hosts, vCenter, vmotion etc. 3 windows standard license -> 6 VMs (not realistic but hey.) With Hyper-V you could get 6 vms as long as the base OS has nothing installed (including backup agents etc) but if you want to actually back them up (not unlike ESXi Free backup issues) now you have to license the hosts, and only get 3 VM's Also at that point you generally want the Hyper-V manager also which is like vCenter you have to cough up $900 for standard or $4k+ for "enterprise."

I find they are generally slightly cheaper to damn near equal on the apple to apple level. VMWare starts getting more expensive when you ask it to do things that Hyper-V barely has a concept of like Storage control, hot datacenter failover etc.

My background is more Windows-centric so I guess I feel more comfortable that it's Windows.... kind of lame I guess!

You would be in luck. Other than some of the VMWare appliances that are currently optional, there is no Linux in ESXi anyway. The web interface is a work in progress so far but the older client is very straight forward.

 

[Kremlar]

Is there some kind of mental institution I can check into for my growing love of windows server?

Thanks for confirming my feeling that Hyper-V is actually quite good!

You get 2 activations if and only if the base OS is not doing anything else. This includes backups etc so most Hyper-V systems blow a license on the base OS and then is only allowed 1 VM (standard license.)

This is the wording from their licensing sheet:

When a customer is running all allowed virtual instances, the physical instance may only be used to manage and service the virtual instances.

This makes me feel like the host OS can backup the VMs without eating a license, but I'd like to get confirmation on that one way or another.

More wording from their licensing whitepaper:

In other words, in this situation, you can run any software in the physical OSE as long as it is used solely to manage or directly support the management of the virtual OSEs on the licensed server.

This makes me feel like software to backup the VMs is allowed.

Well there is the famous chicken and the egg issues with a virtual DC on Hyper-V. I think 2012 was supposed to fix that

I'm not feeling like I need to join the host OS instance to the domain for any reason, which would avoid that scenario. Am I missing something? But that's one of the reasons I like a physical DC especially in a larger environment when the budget supports several boxes.

 

[imagoon]

Thanks for confirming my feeling that Hyper-V is actually quite good!




This is the wording from their licensing sheet:

When a customer is running all allowed virtual instances, the physical instance may only be used to manage and service the virtual instances.

This makes me feel like the host OS can backup the VMs without eating a license, but I'd like to get confirmation on that one way or another.

More wording from their licensing whitepaper:

In other words, in this situation, you can run any software in the physical OSE as long as it is used solely to manage or directly support the management of the virtual OSEs on the licensed server.

This makes me feel like software to backup the VMs is allowed.




I'm not feeling like I need to join the host OS instance to the domain for any reason, which would avoid that scenario. Am I missing something? But that's one of the reasons I like a physical DC especially in a larger environment when the budget supports several boxes.

I'll check the Backup thing but I remember our MS rep saying that backup app is not "managing" the VM as they meant Hyper-V apps + powershell. It was one of Veeam's selling points since they did agentless backups.

You join the hosts so you can manage them. The Hyper-V management system breaks down otherwise.

 

[Kremlar]

I'll check the Backup thing but I remember our MS rep saying that backup app is not "managing" the VM as they meant Hyper-V apps + powershell. It was one of Veeam's selling points since they did agentless backups.

To me the key wording is "manage and service". It also says you can run "any software", so if it's OK to use the host OS to backup the VM using powershell it should be OK to use Acronis. But I'm going to double-check some avenues as well.

You join the hosts so you can manage them. The Hyper-V management system breaks down otherwise.

But with a single or maybe 2 physical server setup running a few VMs each it doesn't seem necessary - but if I'm missing something please fill me in!

 

[imagoon]

To me the key wording is "manage and service". It also says you can run "any software", so if it's OK to use the host OS to backup the VM using powershell it should be OK to use Acronis. But I'm going to double-check some avenues as well.




But with a single or maybe 2 physical server setup running a few VMs each it doesn't seem necessary - but if I'm missing something please fill me in!

Don't take my word for it, ask your licensing rep. MS has loosened a lot of the restrictions in 2012 (r2?) also so I might not be completely up to date. For the longest time "Free Hyper-V" was powershell management only so...

As for management.... "Nothing is necessary" but it can make your life quite bit harder. I think you can't do the clustering / CSV / HA in hyper-V without the shared security model so you would be basically hurting yourself out the door. I think it also breaks "Shared Nothing?" Honestly this isn't unlike running 2 copies of ESXi Free and using different passwords. They become two isolated hosts that is more like managing 2 machines than 1 coherent system which is one of the largest benefits to VMs in general.

 

[Kremlar]

Don't take my word for it, ask your licensing rep. MS has loosened a lot of the restrictions in 2012 (r2?) also so I might not be completely up to date. For the longest time "Free Hyper-V" was powershell management only so...

Gave them a call today. They said the key was that the backup software serviced only the licensed VMs. So, if the backup software is also backing up workstations or a different physical server it would be a license violation. If the backup software is only backing up the licensed VMs on this server it would be fine.

 

[drebo]

HyperV has gotten a lot better, but VMware with vCenter is still superior.

For instance, you cannot delete and roll up a snapshot in Hyper-V while the machine is running. Also, HA/FT scenarios are not nearly as clear or functional.

Hyper-V is great for smaller deployments, but VMware is still superior if you have more than a few VMs and more than one host.

For backups, I really like ShadowProtect. I've started to use AppAssure a bit, as well. These are great for agent-based backups (mix of VM and physical.) vRanger is very, very similar to Veeam in function (backup via VMware APIs,) but it is significantly less expensive. Also vRanger doesn't support Hyper-V.

 

[sourceninja]

HyperV has gotten a lot better, but VMware with vCenter is still superior.

For instance, you cannot delete and roll up a snapshot in Hyper-V while the machine is running. Also, HA/FT scenarios are not nearly as clear or functional.

Hyper-V is great for smaller deployments, but VMware is still superior if you have more than a few VMs and more than one host.

For backups, I really like ShadowProtect. I've started to use AppAssure a bit, as well. These are great for agent-based backups (mix of VM and physical.) vRanger is very, very similar to Veeam in function (backup via VMware APIs,) but it is significantly less expensive. Also vRanger doesn't support Hyper-V.

I'm 99% sure that hyper-v 2012 has live merge of snapshots while VM's are powered on. Clustering is a little complicated at first (a handful of steps compared to just turning on HA), but it's pretty easy to setup and use and really is feature comparable to HA/FT. I'm the biggest vmware fan you will find and I try to turn almost all of our proposals into vsphere deployments, but honestly I'm finding it really hard to make a business case for a shop running all windows servers to spend the money on vmware.

Most of these customers will never run anything but windows and in many cases already have an agreement with MS that includes System Center. To be close to feature comparable to Hyper-V + System Center I'd have to propose at least Vsphere enterprise. Our biggest clients are still VMWare shops though, and honestly I don't see that changing, they know vmware, they trust vmware, and let's face it...vmware makes great products. But we do have mid sized clients where I'm sure hyper-v is going to be discussed as a replacement when it's time to grow/replace their cluster. I've even got a client who has lost their special pricing from vmware and is going to see a large jump in pricing, they are looking at moving their 75 windows VMs to hyper-V and their 200 linux VMs to overt as a way of keeping costs down. I'm actually pitching the idea of doing a pilot where we run some of those linux VM's on hyper-v to test the performance as Redhat is officially supported on hyper-v as a guest.

Lastly, if your looking for a cheap product for backups that works great and supports vmware and hyper-v check out PHDVirtual. It's a VM appliance that can backup virtual machines similar to veeam and is pretty impressive.

 

[Demo24]

Well if the host server will be just a single server at most locations, why not look at the free version of vmware? I recommend virtual (whether hyper-v or vmware) for all environments now. It's simply much easier to do things virtually than physical and I hate seeing servers that only run 5% of the hardware capacity.

As far as backups, if you are happy with acronis, then you will LOVE veeam. I was in the same boat until I tried veeam and after 6 months, I kicked acronis to the curb when it came to server vm backups. Veeam is almost a set it up once correctly with enough disk space for backups and for notifications in case something doesn't complete and you never have to worry about it, it just runs. I get emails if a backup job has any errors or warnings which I then correct but other than that, it can go weeks and as long as disk space is there, it runs wonderfully.

I would without a doubt recommend veeam for virtual machine backups

In my experience the email on backup error only can be a bit dangerous. Over a weekend I had a firewall die, which meant none of my offsitre backups went through. It also meant none of my emails from veeam came through. Now if I was just looking for failure/warning emails I may not have noticed the issue for awhile. Granted in my case the firewall dying was significant to everything else, but I've had times where the email didn't always send because of some other reason. So I ask it to email me every time a backup completes and it just filters to a folder in my inbox that I quickly click through each morning to be sure.