Hi, I have been running 1 windows server 2003 box for a few months now, with no problems whatsoever. I have an active directory domain, exchange, and a website running on the server. I have just installed VMWare, and another windows server installation on the box, I suppose to see if I can squeeze anything else out of it! I just wanted to know if there were any big advantages to doing it like this, or any big disadvantages as well (I could always remove the VMWare machine and go back to 1 server). You're probably going to tell me that my server does too much, I need another DC etc. but it's fine. I'm only 16 - I'm just doing it to learn really! I did have 2 DC's and an IPCop firewall at one point - which was great! But the electricity bill soared so I'm back down to one :( Anyway, thanks a lot, Rob Rob Golding - Gold Computer Solutions - Networking, Email and IT Services/Support - www.goldcs.co.uk

Im using VMWare, admittedly, the host is an XP box, but as long as there is alot of RAM & good processor, then there'll be no problem, just be carefull on the amount of RAM you asign to all the VM boxes, so not to use up the RAM, & slow down the host too much.

THe CPU is a Geode 1750 (1.4 clock), with 1GB of ram. The guest has 384 assigned to it (which was recommended) is that too much? The host has 221mb of RAM free, but is using 915mb of page file. What do you think? Thanks for the reply, Rob Rob Golding - Gold Computer Solutions - Networking, Email and IT Services/Support - www.goldcs.co.uk

That seem s fine, if that is what was recommended, if you can, slam in some more RAM to the host. Will be able to give the client machines go better, as you could asign some more virtual RAM to it. I've got 1.5GB RAM, I've got 1 XP with 384, 2003 Server with 512 & Suse 10 with 384. I dont run the Linux & XP at same time, but the 2003 server is always on, & I don't notice any performance degrigation. My CPU is a Sempron 2800 I always up my pagefile to just shy of 4GB. Incase. Hope this helps Dave

Yeah I was thinking about upgrading the CPU some, maybe to a sempron 2800+. We'll see how it performs as it is. Thanks a lot, Rob Rob Golding - Gold Computer Solutions - Networking, Email and IT Services/Support - www.goldcs.co.uk

Rob, That's pretty impressive that you're doing all this at the age of 16! If you're learning, consider doing this - all "servers" be running as virtual machines, and let the host OS be simply a host OS. That way, you only need to have VM's running specifically for certain tasks for your learning. For example, I have a machine running Windows XP Pro as a ghost OS, and then a virtual machine that's a DC, a virtual machine that's an exchange server, and a virtual machine that's an XP client with Outlook. That gives me a complete environment to do anything AD/Exchange related. I run those three usually concurrently. If I do something stupid and blow the environment up during a learning excercise, I just don't commit the changes to the virtual disks. If I'm doing something that isn't exchange related, I don't start the Exchange server. Best of all, my host OS is never effected by anything that blows up. You get the idea. I have also separate environments built up. For example, I have a different three virtual machines I built for testing NT4 to Windows 2003 migration scenarios. Go that route. Why hose your host OS doing stuff that could blow your system up. That's the best reason to go virtual - avoid it! "Milk was a bad choice!"

Rob, I've done extensive work with virtualization. The absolute number one thing you can do to improve performance as far as hardware goes is have an additional hard drive or drives to run your VM's off of. Consider even faster types of disks and even RAID arrays like RAID0 (do frequent backups though). Next in line is tons of RAM. 2GB's helps trememdously, as you can spread more RAM around to your vm's, so the vm's don't page to their virtual hard drives. Always make sure your host OS has plenty of RAM. If anything, you're better to starve your VM's for RAM than the host OS. Finally, when it comes to CPU's, don't worry so much about clock speed. More L2 cache helps, but nothing beats multiprocessor for virtualization. With dual core CPU's becoming mainstream now even for home machines, that would be the ideal choice. Regardless, a Sempron in this light would not be a good choice. They have reduced cache, which will hurt with virtualization. Go with a full Athlon. If you're on Socket A, look at the Barton core Athlon XP's. If you're on Socket 754, look at the Athlon 64's. "Milk was a bad choice!"