Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is the best way to use single machine for multiple virtual server.

best platform , requirement .

I want to use moss, sccm , wsus , unicenter sd.

it will be used as a test first then i will see what is the best requirement to get a new server.

but its really a general question if you could share your experience, and what step to take .

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by jscott, Mark Henderson, Chris Thorpe, Zypher Oct 8 '10 at 22:46

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I am not clear on what you're asking. Please expand your question's detail. Perhaps you could include information about your goals and requirements for this virtual server. – jscott Oct 7 '10 at 21:28
There's no single "best" virtualisation platform, it's like asking me what the best cut of a suit for me is then deciding that must look good on you too because I said it was "the best". What one are you most familiar with (e.g. Are you comfortable with Windows and hence might lean to the MS platform)? Might the platform have to grow eventually? If so, how will it grow? Will you need support for things like a VMotion setup one day? Those are just some of the things you need to consider for a VM platform, so you can see that it's hard to answer your question with just the info given. – RobM Oct 7 '10 at 21:34
well guys i appreciate if you could guide me for the best for a newbie ? i hear about 2 major platform hyper-v , vmware esx – Eddy Oct 7 '10 at 21:42

It depends on what base OS you have - but there's VirtualBox, Xen, KVM, Hyper-V, VMWare server/workstation/ESX/ESXi (probably the best right now but can be either free or expensive) - it really depends on what you're trying to achieve and what you have today. Either way you'll want lots of cores, memory and fast disk ok. Why not come back when you've done some more digging, we'll be more than happy to answer any more specific questions you may have.

share|improve this answer
whats the free ? – Eddy Oct 7 '10 at 21:41
ESXi on its own without all the multi-host goodies is free, no support as such but well it is free I guess, you can then buy various levels of licence to switch on the clustering features and get proper support as and when you need it. – Chopper3 Oct 8 '10 at 7:09

Based on your edits... Firstly.. "What Chopper said". Secondly...

We're a VMWare ESX shop because that was the most mature product at the time we made our choice, and that is probably still true a lot of situations.

Hyper-V is a maturing product (certainly compared to VMWare anyway) that is still well worth considering, especially if you're an "all Microsoft" shop and are comfortable and familiar with how Microsoft like you to administer their modern round of OSes and apps.

For a testbed then I'd say that minimal stretch to learn the new platform is good, so if you're already very familiar with the MS infrastructure (and especially if you've already got the tools deployed that make managing hyper-v easier, e.g. SCOM) then this can be a good choice.

If you want to test a wide mix of operating systems from a more platform agnostic virtualisation supplier then VMWare starts to make more sense.

As for leading to production, both platforms are designed to integrate multiple hosts and shared storage for high availability clustering and other fancy features like that, which I'd argue is a good idea for a production network (virtualisation can mean putting all your (virtual server) eggs into one or two baskets (physical hardware hosts).

You have to consider the cost of a hardware fault that knocks 6 important virtual servers offline at that point, which makes the clustering features attractive. Clustering might not be cheap (especially as you need to look at shared storage to make it worthwhile) but on a production network not having it might cost even more, if you see what I mean.

If you think you'll go this way in the end, then VMWare have the more mature tools so it might be worth planning with the future in mind...

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.