• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hyper-V

B

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
I finally got my new server home from the office and I got Server 2008 installed and I am installing SP2 now. Many of you know I tend to run hardware I consider 2.5-4 years out from mass market (mass meaning consumer and SMB focussed). I tend to forecast these things for work, so if you want to see what you'll be using soon enough...

VmServer.jpg

Doesn't it seem lonely without any VM's running yet? Debated Hyper-V over ESXi, but decided on Hyper-V as I run enough Vmware here.
 
Originally posted by: Crusty
I think you need more RAM. :Q
Click to expand...

Unfortunately going from 128gig to 256gig wasn't a small increase, it was non-linear by 4x (e.g. machine with 128gig was 19kish, going to 256gig was another 24k). 128 is the current sweet spot...
 
So you think that in 4-5 years 24 core systems with 128GB RAM will be affordable? I certainly hope so! Admittedly, with DDR2-800 currently running at ~$10/GB, then 128GB of RAM is not obscenely expensive really, especially not when you consider how anytime something new comes out, there will be a person that will regale you with how much they spent on significantly less (the $300 I spent on 1GB of DDR-400 back in '04 is an example, or the $100 160GB hard drive at the same time).

So, the real question is, are we really thinking that systems will even begin to 'need' that kind of hardware? I mean, Vista and 7 can run just fine on a dual core with 2GB-4GB RAM, I really would start to be afraid if OS X and Windows needed much more than a Quad core and say 8-16GB of RAM in that amount of time. Even the RAM amount is pushing it in my mind.
 
wow that is pretty sweet.

how many VMs do you think that will be able to support? how much HD space do you have?
 
Originally posted by: Chiefcrowe
wow that is pretty sweet.

how many VMs do you think that will be able to support? how much HD space do you have?
Click to expand...

5TB, I should be able to run about 50 comfortably. When HyperV gets memory sharing like Vmware that should grow to about 80 (only a few high use ones, the others can easily share the procs at a 4:1 ratio)
 
Originally posted by: TheStu
So you think that in 4-5 years 24 core systems with 128GB RAM will be affordable? I certainly hope so! Admittedly, with DDR2-800 currently running at ~$10/GB, then 128GB of RAM is not obscenely expensive really, especially not when you consider how anytime something new comes out, there will be a person that will regale you with how much they spent on significantly less (the $300 I spent on 1GB of DDR-400 back in '04 is an example, or the $100 160GB hard drive at the same time).
Click to expand...

The cores are going to be the driver, as software finally starts taking advantage of them properly. Memory really has gotten cheap these last 4 years.

So, the real question is, are we really thinking that systems will even begin to 'need' that kind of hardware? I mean, Vista and 7 can run just fine on a dual core with 2GB-4GB RAM, I really would start to be afraid if OS X and Windows needed much more than a Quad core and say 8-16GB of RAM in that amount of time. Even the RAM amount is pushing it in my mind.
Click to expand...

Again, true parallel processing advances will start making multi-cores useful (as they did with the GPU). I think core growth is going to continue to accelerate so having just 24 will be quaint in a few years (5-7)
 
I haven't done enough research on this, but how well is Win 7 supposed to utilize mulitple cores? Since I am on a Mac, I am a little more up on the next OS X than I am on the next Windows, and I know that Apple apparently has been spending a lot of time on making not only the OS, but all the apps that run on it better able to handle multicore systems.

I mean you can see the performance difference in things like video encoding, something that even non-power-users will do, such as my mother, ripping DVDs to her iPod. Something that used to take 4-5 hours on my 2.4GHz Athlon XP takes about a 1-2 hours on my 1.83 GHz Core Duo.
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Are.... are you Tony Stark?
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha!

Former boy genius and recovering alcoholic Tony Stark?

Dude! Better watch yourself... :beer:

OP: Just a question...

With all that (I guess) power, how come you don't host your own pics?
 
So, bill, are you going to give us a list of the actual hardware? I'm curious how you come out to 24 cores, rather than 16 or 32. Core i7 has 8 threads (shows up as cores in task manager), so this rig has three Core i7s (Xeons), and not two or four? Seems strange to me.

Other than that, have fun with your new toy. 🙂

(Building a fileserver myself, with a Norco 4020 case. Nice 4U case with 20 hot-swap drive bays.)
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So, bill, are you going to give us a list of the actual hardware? I'm curious how you come out to 24 cores, rather than 16 or 32. Core i7 has 8 threads (shows up as cores in task manager), so this rig has three Core i7s (Xeons), and not two or four? Seems strange to me.
Click to expand...

Intel is shipping their 6 core xeons, so it's quad 6 cores...
 
Cinebench score please! 😀

Definitely nice and (seriously) more ram is necessary for these systems. 4TB ram support is needed for large enterprise servers IMO.
 
honestly, I think the Dunnington (6-core) Xeon's are going to disappear shortly. They were a stopgap measure to compete against AMD until they could get the Nehalem (i7-based) chips out. The Nehalem Xeon's are insanely fast for virtualization. A 2-socket Nehalem based system is faster than a 4 socket Dunnington.
 
Originally posted by: quikah
honestly, I think the Dunnington (6-core) Xeon's are going to disappear shortly. They were a stopgap measure to compete against AMD until they could get the Nehalem (i7-based) chips out. The Nehalem Xeon's are insanely fast for virtualization. A 2-socket Nehalem based system is faster than a 4 socket Dunnington.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I replace machines often enough that I'll just upgrade when something is viable at the price point with more memory or more cores. But, as a snapshot in time, it was the most cores/mem for the price I could come up with.
 
Originally posted by: quikah
honestly, I think the Dunnington (6-core) Xeon's are going to disappear shortly. They were a stopgap measure to compete against AMD until they could get the Nehalem (i7-based) chips out. The Nehalem Xeon's are insanely fast for virtualization. A 2-socket Nehalem based system is faster than a 4 socket Dunnington.
Click to expand...

Just wait until Nehalem EX...
 
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: quikah
honestly, I think the Dunnington (6-core) Xeon's are going to disappear shortly. They were a stopgap measure to compete against AMD until they could get the Nehalem (i7-based) chips out. The Nehalem Xeon's are insanely fast for virtualization. A 2-socket Nehalem based system is faster than a 4 socket Dunnington.
Click to expand...

Just wait until Nehalem EX...
Click to expand...

But those aren't until 2010 right?
 
Did you pay for this yourself? That is insane for home!
Anyways what kind of VMs do you plan on running on it? Are you hosting for people?

How are you going to configure the VMs? How much ram? Looks like with 50 VMs about 2GB each?

If you can keep me informed. Curious to see how Windows 2008 performs\Handles that kind of workload.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top