[NeverTriedApple]

Hey guys,

I was holding off buying a server for a small office but now that mini is out I'd like to hear your opinion on the following. I am after a server that will run 3-4 virtual machines under either Parallels or Virtualbox (first is paid already but I hate it for the ads, second is free):

- Win 7 w/ SQL Server 2k8
- FreeBSD mail server
- FreeBSD web server

Those 3 above will have to be accessible from the internet. There won't be much use in mail/web and they are not mission critical but SQL VM will be used pretty much whole day every day. I'd like to have it all run under OS X for automatic backups, reliability and overall ease of use. The choice of guest OS's is simple - it's either something that I can get up and running fairly quickly and something I already know (FreeBSD) or I have to deal with it (Windows, accounting). I don't have time to learn something new even if it's cheaper. Also I wouldn't want to run more than 1 machine and it must sit quietly in the corner and pay its upkeep.

My concerns re mini are:

- No ECC memory
- Compact design, so it might eventually run hot and noisy
- If hard drives fail it's not easy to swap them as everything is crammed inside

My concerns re Mac Pro are:

- High initial cost, even for a refurb (Apple do finance only on new models)
- High power consumption
- Relative overkill for my needs (it will run headless so no graphics needed or more than 2 drives)


What do you all think?

Thanks.

[NeverTriedApple]

OK, I ended up with a new mini. Will see how I'm getting on with it..

[Waragainstsleep]

You know the Mini Server has mail and web services built in right? They aren't too tricky to administer, I'd favour that over running three separate VMs at once, its going to slow the whole thing down alot running 3.

[foo2]

I'd suggest looking at ESXi (free) plus a generic Intel $300 Intel box with $50 - $100 in extra RAM. You'll get fantastic performance, a well-known and supportable platform, and all kinds of great functionality.

You can always use (depending on the OS) Windows Home Server (yep, even in a domain environment) to handle daily backups and "bare-metal" restores, if that's a concern.

[olePigeon]

OS X Server does fine as a basic Mail and Web server.

[besson3c]

If you are going to run VMs on OS X, the "reliable backup" argument is not strong, because you'll want to backup the data within the VM guests, not simply the images themselves. If you want the images backed up I'd suggest VM snapshots, although understand that these aren't really backups per say, the same way that cloning your hard drive isn't a backup.

As far as a VM host goes, I wouldn't choose OS X, because it consumes too many resources unless you disable Aqua altogether, in which case you reap none of the benefits of running OS X. Server focused VM host solutions offer command line solutions for managing your VMs, which allows you to work swiftly in emergencies among a number of other benefits, and without dealing with annoying lag issues you'd likely experience trying to manage OS X from a long distance via VNC, which may kill your upload bandwidth such that connecting simultaneously to your Windows VM via RDP would be pretty bad. If you are going to go with OS X, I'd recommend VirtualBox since it offers command line management tools - I don't think Parallels does?

Outside of OS X your best options are probably Linux + KVM + libvirt, Linux + Xen, or ESXi. If you are going to run FreeBSD, it won't run paravirtualized, so there is little point in running Xen, as far as I can see. Linux + KVM will provide you with remote access to your VMs via a GUI app called virt-manager which you can run in X11 forwarding (which consumes far fewer resources than running all of Aqua and doing the VNC thing). libvirt provides all of the command line tools you'll need for managing your VMs (as does virt-manager, if you'd prefer a GUI instead). If you go with ESXi you'll have to use their annoying Windows client. If snapshots will be important to you I'd research how to best automate them, namely if you can with ESXi at all while staying within the free threshold.

Honestly, I love FreeBSD, I used to run it for years myself, but if performance is an issue for you I'd avoid FreeBSD because you won't be able to run it paravirtualized.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

OS X Server does fine as a basic Mail and Web server.

If you avoid its GUIs it does, otherwise they can give you a false sense of productivity until they start messing up your config files, an OS X update breaks things, or you want to do something that goes outside of the Apple bubble. Last I checked Time Machine does not backup the Dovecot mail store either.

My point is that yes OS X can work fine, but don't just be one of those people that relies on and trusts the GUI without learning a bit about the services you are running - this strategy can explode in your face, and it isn't fun when it does during an emergency.

[NeverTriedApple]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you are going to run VMs on OS X, the "reliable backup" argument is not strong, because you'll want to backup the data within the VM guests, not simply the images themselves. If you want the images backed up I'd suggest VM snapshots, although understand that these aren't really backups per say, the same way that cloning your hard drive isn't a backup.

As far as a VM host goes, I wouldn't choose OS X, because it consumes too many resources unless you disable Aqua altogether, in which case you reap none of the benefits of running OS X. Server focused VM host solutions offer command line solutions for managing your VMs, which allows you to work swiftly in emergencies among a number of other benefits, and without dealing with annoying lag issues you'd likely experience trying to manage OS X from a long distance via VNC, which may kill your upload bandwidth such that connecting simultaneously to your Windows VM via RDP would be pretty bad. If you are going to go with OS X, I'd recommend VirtualBox since it offers command line management tools - I don't think Parallels does?

Outside of OS X your best options are probably Linux + KVM + libvirt, Linux + Xen, or ESXi. If you are going to run FreeBSD, it won't run paravirtualized, so there is little point in running Xen, as far as I can see. Linux + KVM will provide you with remote access to your VMs via a GUI app called virt-manager which you can run in X11 forwarding (which consumes far fewer resources than running all of Aqua and doing the VNC thing). libvirt provides all of the command line tools you'll need for managing your VMs (as does virt-manager, if you'd prefer a GUI instead). If you go with ESXi you'll have to use their annoying Windows client. If snapshots will be important to you I'd research how to best automate them, namely if you can with ESXi at all while staying within the free threshold.

Honestly, I love FreeBSD, I used to run it for years myself, but if performance is an issue for you I'd avoid FreeBSD because you won't be able to run it paravirtualized.

Thank you for such detailed response. I think my main problem is that although there might be easier and cheaper solutions, they all require some kind of learning and I am pushed for time. I pretty much need a machine that I "set and forget". I like and use FreeBSD but I don't know Linux at all. I can always beef up Mac Pro with SSD or extra RAM to eliminate lagging, even though it will run OS X only as a "hypervisor" kind of OS. Building a machine from scratch is indeed much cheaper but as I've never used ESXi, for me the quicker route would be installing Windows 7, Virtualbox and running FreeBSD as VMs. Now, Windows 7 as server OS? Don't think that out of the box it will be better than OS X. So all in all it may sound like I'm trying to justify the purchase of an overprices Mac Pro but when it comes down to setting up a server, all things considered (time, mostly) - it doesn't look too bad. The back up will be from within the VMs, as well as Time Machine and "dumb" copying of data. Hard drives will be mirrored too.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You know the Mini Server has mail and web services built in right? They aren't too tricky to administer, I'd favour that over running three separate VMs at once, its going to slow the whole thing down alot running 3.

I tried said Mac mini and had to return it back 3 days later. The CPU was barely loaded @ 12-25% but I/O was horrible. Software mirroring didn't help things. So yes, I agree, the I/O is a bottle neck and Apple provided SSD option takes Mac mini to another cost level entirely.

Originally Posted by foo2 

I'd suggest looking at ESXi (free) plus a generic Intel $300 Intel box with $50 - $100 in extra RAM. You'll get fantastic performance, a well-known and supportable platform, and all kinds of great functionality.
You can always use (depending on the OS) Windows Home Server (yep, even in a domain environment) to handle daily backups and "bare-metal" restores, if that's a concern.

I specced a Xeon machine that is about 1/2 Mac Pro price - basically buying the components and build it on the bench. Trouble is I've never used ESXi so no idea how it works or backs up data (does it even do it?). I'm a bit pushed for time and learning new things will take even longer, hence the easier approach I thought of taking by getting a beefy Mac Pro, installing VirtualBox, etc. I am still considering my options though so no decision was made yet (apart from the returned mini).

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

OS X Server does fine as a basic Mail and Web server.

It does but indeed very basic. I hope it improved because the first ever version was very limited GUI-wise. My original requirement has changed a little in that I now need to run a few (4) independent mail domains and I can do all that with Postfix under BSD but unsure about the OS X, especially with OS X GUI interference.

[NeverTriedApple]

I think I'm going to order Dell server and go ESXi route. Can't justify the cost of Mac Pro, no matter what.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple 

Thank you for such detailed response. I think my main problem is that although there might be easier and cheaper solutions, they all require some kind of learning and I am pushed for time. I pretty much need a machine that I "set and forget". I like and use FreeBSD but I don't know Linux at all. I can always beef up Mac Pro with SSD or extra RAM to eliminate lagging, even though it will run OS X only as a "hypervisor" kind of OS. Building a machine from scratch is indeed much cheaper but as I've never used ESXi, for me the quicker route would be installing Windows 7, Virtualbox and running FreeBSD as VMs. Now, Windows 7 as server OS? Don't think that out of the box it will be better than OS X. So all in all it may sound like I'm trying to justify the purchase of an overprices Mac Pro but when it comes down to setting up a server, all things considered (time, mostly) - it doesn't look too bad. The back up will be from within the VMs, as well as Time Machine and "dumb" copying of data. Hard drives will be mirrored too.
I tried said Mac mini and had to return it back 3 days later. The CPU was barely loaded @ 12-25% but I/O was horrible. Software mirroring didn't help things. So yes, I agree, the I/O is a bottle neck and Apple provided SSD option takes Mac mini to another cost level entirely.
I specced a Xeon machine that is about 1/2 Mac Pro price - basically buying the components and build it on the bench. Trouble is I've never used ESXi so no idea how it works or backs up data (does it even do it?). I'm a bit pushed for time and learning new things will take even longer, hence the easier approach I thought of taking by getting a beefy Mac Pro, installing VirtualBox, etc. I am still considering my options though so no decision was made yet (apart from the returned mini).
It does but indeed very basic. I hope it improved because the first ever version was very limited GUI-wise. My original requirement has changed a little in that I now need to run a few (4) independent mail domains and I can do all that with Postfix under BSD but unsure about the OS X, especially with OS X GUI interference.

If you need a computer to setup and forget, Linux would actually be much better than FreeBSD in this regard.

If you have experience using FreeBSD, you shouldn't have any problems getting libvirt + KVM + the virt-manager GUI going in Linux. In fact, it is literally a one command install once you have some Linux variant installed, and one command on your Mac to fire up the GUI to setup your first VM (which is pretty decent). You might want to install something like Debian in a VM on your Mac and have me give you the secret recipe you'll need to see this for yourself. About the only other thing you'll need to address is possibly just setting up the static IP and firewall for the Linux machine, where applicable, and learning how to apply system updates. If you are comfortable enough with FreeBSD you shouldn't have a problem here.

FreeBSD is not a particularly good OS for running a VM host or guest, unfortunately. In addition to KVM and Xen not being a strong option (if at all, I think FreeBSD has some Xen support now), performance is going to be far less without paravirtualization. Part of the reason why the Mini performed so poorly is lack of paravirtualization, which meant that all disks being offered to your guests had to be handled through a generic SATA driver, and all I/O had to be funneled through the hypervisor. With paravirtualization, your guests would have direct access to the underlying disks. You'd have paravirtualization drivers with KVM that are called "Virtio" - these work in Linux and Windows guests.

All of the big cloud VM providers: Amazon EC2, Rackspace, Linode, etc. are all Xen based running on Linux. KVM is a close equivalent that is generally better suited for smaller scale use (one advantage being it doesn't require you to run the separate Xen version of the Linux kernel). I believe where VMWare ESXi sells really well is to companies that want to host their own VMs because of all of the additional tools and support that Amazon/Rackspace/Linode probably handle in-house. You will pay an arm-and-a-leg for these VMWare tools though, I'm not sure if there is a compelling reason to get into ESXi if you don't intend to purchase this extra stuff.

I would check out ESXi though, but for me the last time I tested it, its well-documented horrible clock skews and the fact that I needed a Windows client were deal breakers to me. Choosing ESXi would be a no-brainer if you needed more robust features such as balancing, failover, etc. but it sounds like your needs aren't this involved. Some of those may be different now, it was a good while ago when I tested ESXi.

Going with a Dell over a Mac Pro is sadly a no-brainer too. You did well there. I'd definitely quickly check out the Linux route just to cover your bases, I'm happy to help you get going, it's surprisingly simple.

[NeverTriedApple]

Thank you. I will get the machine here and give you a shout.