Overclock.net banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quick question for you guys,

I currently have a Raid 1 array that I would like to use exclusively in a guest vm running WS 2012 R2; this vm is used as a file server. What would be the best way/practice to pass the array to the vm ?
- Set the array as inactive in the host and assign the physical drive to the vm
- Create a virtual disk on the complete raid 1 and assign it to the vm (long process!)
- any other solution ?

Thanks !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
If you're interested in portability at all, I would create a virtual disk and assign it to the VM. If you pass physical resources, you have no storage migration option, no VM-level backup abilities, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
Why do you want to virtualize your storage setup? If you're running Hyper-V, you're obviously running Windows so why not make your hypervisor host just serve out your files? Better performance and less complicated.

The only benefit I could see from virtualizing a storage server, at least in Windows, would be if you were using a pair (or more) of VM's for Scale Out File Servers (SOFS). For a single host, I don't see the benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks for your answers !
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbreitba View Post

If you're interested in portability at all, I would create a virtual disk and assign it to the VM. If you pass physical resources, you have no storage migration option, no VM-level backup abilities, etc.
For now I'm not looking for portability, as I do not consider expanding to more than one host. I previously had a virtual drive passed to a VM, but it seemed to me than having a virtual drive expanding to the full array was an unnecessary extra layer... or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tycoonbob View Post

Why do you want to virtualize your storage setup? If you're running Hyper-V, you're obviously running Windows so why not make your hypervisor host just serve out your files? Better performance and less complicated.
Well this is initially what I tought would be the best option, but I keep reading in every Hyper-v "best practives" to keep the host as vanilla as possible, except backups.

Before I upgraded my server, I had a VM used as a file server that was also a ftp / http server to who I had passed a big virtual drive. If I keep the storage on the host, I should now have a share on the host and my ftp/http site would be feeded by the share?

Also, lets say I want to map a network drive to the share on other computers in the network, that mean that I should expose the host on the network and map my drive directly to "\\myHypervHost\myShareFolder\" ?

Thanks !
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliG View Post

Thanks for your answers !
For now I'm not looking for portability, as I do not consider expanding to more than one host. I previously had a virtual drive passed to a VM, but it seemed to me than having a virtual drive expanding to the full array was an unnecessary extra layer... or not?
Well this is initially what I tought would be the best option, but I keep reading in every Hyper-v "best practives" to keep the host as vanilla as possible, except backups.

Before I upgraded my server, I had a VM used as a file server that was also a ftp / http server to who I had passed a big virtual drive. If I keep the storage on the host, I should now have a share on the host and my ftp/http site would be feeded by the share?

Also, lets say I want to map a network drive to the share on other computers in the network, that mean that I should expose the host on the network and map my drive directly to "\\myHypervHost\myShareFolder\" ?

Thanks !
Best performance is passthrough-disk configuration at the Hyper-V level. Set the disk to offline in Disk Management on the Hyper-V host, and then assign it to the virtual machine. Loss of performance is negligible - I have the same setup at home that stores media files. I get about 85MByte/sec over my gigabit network, but I know there's a bit of a loss in network performance because the VMs are running over a PCI-X connection rather than PCIe.

What's your current backup methodology?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComGuards View Post

Best performance is passthrough-disk configuration at the Hyper-V level. Set the disk to offline in Disk Management on the Hyper-V host, and then assign it to the virtual machine. Loss of performance is negligible - I have the same setup at home that stores media files. I get about 85MByte/sec over my gigabit network, but I know there's a bit of a loss in network performance because the VMs are running over a PCI-X connection rather than PCIe.

What's your current backup methodology?
I agree. That is the same method I use on my hyper-v guest (Windows 2008 Core). Over my gigabit network I get around 110MB/s when transferring file to the VM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComGuards View Post

Best performance is passthrough-disk configuration at the Hyper-V level. Set the disk to offline in Disk Management on the Hyper-V host, and then assign it to the virtual machine. Loss of performance is negligible - I have the same setup at home that stores media files. I get about 85MByte/sec over my gigabit network, but I know there's a bit of a loss in network performance because the VMs are running over a PCI-X connection rather than PCIe.

What's your current backup methodology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus View Post

I agree. That is the same method I use on my hyper-v guest (Windows 2008 Core). Over my gigabit network I get around 110MB/s when transferring file to the VM.
Thanks, I went this route and it works great so far. I still need to test I/O speeds but when transfering big files from LAN to the VM I get around 110 MB/s as well; doesnt need more speed for my needs.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top