Russ \(www.SBITS.Biz\) replied...

Cris,
I know that wasn't intentional  but when I clicked on your link, it went to
your OWA Email Account...

Instead of:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd239207.aspx

For those like me that it happend just put in the url and it will work.

Thanks

Russ

--
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist
World Wide 24hr SBS2003 Remote Support - http://www.SBITS.Biz


Title: Using Hyper-V with Windows Small Business Server 2008
URL:  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd239207.aspx
This document provides an overview of the use of virtualization in a
Windows® Small Business Server 2008 (Windows SBS 2008) environment, and
discusses scenarios in which Windows SBS 2008 supports the Hyper-V
technology.

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Author, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
A Microsoft Registered Partner
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

  Rosewoo replied...

Thank you Cris.

So I won't be able to use Hyper-V on my SBS2008 machine so that I could have
one SBS2008 server and have other virtual servers running on it. I have to
start with Server 2008 and virtualize the sbs2008 session.

  Cris Hanna [SBS MVP] replied...

That is correct.   SBS 2008 as the Host OS is not supported.

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Author, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

  Cris Hanna [SBS MVP] replied...

And if you purchase SBS 2008 premium, you'll get the second Server license
to use as the Host OS.

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Author, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

  Rosewoo replied...

Thank you Cris.

I suspect that in the cases where we are going to have just one server and
not wanting to purchases SBS2008 premium we will simply use vmware :(

I was really hoping that SBS2008 would support being the Host OS w/ Hyper-V.

  Cris Hanna [SBS MVP] replied...

Are you talking about installing SBS then installing VMware on the SBS
server?

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Author, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

  Richard Warren replied...

It looks like running SBS2008 (either standard or premium) in a
virtualized environment on only one server is actually an anticipated
scenario:  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd239200.aspx.

There may be a difference between discussing it and supporting it however
because I've heard it both ways from different MS folks so far...;-)


Thanks,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosewood [mailto:Rosewood@]
Posted At: Saturday, November 01, 2008 11:41 AM
Posted To: microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
Conversation: Using Hyper-V with Windows Small Business Server 2008
Subject: Re: Using Hyper-V with Windows Small Business Server 2008

Thank you Cris.

I suspect that in the cases where we are going to have just one server and
not wanting to purchases SBS2008 premium we will simply use vmware :(

I was really hoping that SBS2008 would support being the Host OS w/
Hyper-V.

  SuperGumby [SBS MVP] replied...

non-issue.

MS have released 'Windows Hyper-V Server' as a free download. This is a base
installation which only allows features relating to virtualisation. SBS08 is
fully supported in a virtual environment.

Either you need one Windows Server license (SBS) and you run it physically
on the box (OK, people discuss virtualisation as a DR strategy, validly) or
you need at least one additional server license and in Server 08 you get
'1+1 rights' so that the one license can be used as both host (only roles
supporting virtualisation) and a full implementation, or you use WHVS for
the host.

SBS has never been a desirable virtualisation host, it's doing enough
already.

  Rosewoo replied...

Yes. Being able to start up a virtual machine on the sbs2008 is something I
was really looking forward to. I do this currently on SBS2003 using an older
version of Virtual Server or VMWare.

One scenario I was thinking about was a 3rd party application that will not
run (yet) on Server 2008. It uses minimal resources but I could simply have a
virtual Server 2003 session running on the sbs2008 box.

  Rosewoo replied...

I can not stress how much I love the MVP support around these parts.

However, writing this off as a "non-issue" is a little flippant. It is an
issue for those of us that wanted to use SBS2008 has a virtualization host as
well.

This idea that SBS is not good for being a virtualization host is one of the
most frustrating things I've experienced over the years here. The beauty of
SBS since the early days is that you could get big boy toys down to one
server. Virtualization is one of those big boy toys that needs to come home
to the small office, and it is a shame that MS is not supporting it in
SBS2008. If my machine has the resources and the ability, I should be able to
run it.

And I will run it, but unfortunately it will be with third party software.

  SuperGumby [SBS MVP] replied...

You'll get better performance and be in a 'supported scenario' if you run
the hardware as Windows Hyper-V Server and virtualise SBS.

  Rosewoo replied...

The better performance statement is yet to be seen.

Server 2008 running a virtual instance of SBS2008 and a virtual instance of
Server 2003 versus a hypothetic sbs2008 with a virtual instance of Server
2003. On paper at least it looks like the one machine running one virtual
machine would see better performance than the one machine running two virtual
machines.

host will drive me to VMware.

  kj [SBS MVP] replied...

Not withstanding the unsupported (currently) nature, how is a VMware choice
any better?



--
/kj

  Susan Bradley replied...

As a biz owner and a patchaholic... why do you want to put key things
UNDER a box that demands a reboot each month?

Seriously.

I don't see why people want to stick something on top of a box that is
doing a lot of stuff.

What's the reasoning besides "I should be able to just because I want to"

  Susan Bradley replied...

Download HyperV
On that I put a virtualized SBS and then a virtualized 2k8... or
vista...or whatever.

If I need to reboot the vista, no biggie.  If I reboot the SBS, the
workstation may lose network resources but it stays up.


VMware on top of SBS 2008, with workstations, etc underneath.
I reboot the SBS, there goes the entire setup.

Why do you consider the virtual on top of the SBS preferred?

Give me key factors here.

Business and technical reasons why this is preferred?

  SuperGumby [SBS MVP] replied...

If you feel you are being 'driven' to VMWare you really should consider
VMWare ESXi (also a free download) rather than virtualising under SBS.

Let's see about the alternatives:
1) I have a busy server OS which is known to be both RAM and disk intensive,
due in no small part to the many things it is doing (DC, Exchange, File
Server, Sharepoint, etc...), but it's got heaps of CPU cycles waiting in
reserve. This is both ill advised and 'unsupported'.
2) I have a free alternative available (vendor agnostic) which will give me
_near_ native performance and result in a fully supportable condition.

To me it's a 'no brainer'.

  Rosewoo replied...

How would my VMWare scenario be better?

In my scenario you only have two operating systems running. The host OS in
SBS2008 and the Virtual OS in Server 2003.  (or if you run bare metal, you
have two virtuals, but still only two operating systems / machines /
instances at any given time). The only cost is SBS2008 standard, VMware and
Server 2003 (which we already have).

In the supported scenario there is Server 2008 running, SBS2008 running
virtually and then Server 2003 running virtually. This means three operating
systems / machines / instances going at any given time. This is naturally
going to take up more resources.

This has nothing to do with "Vmware vs Hyper-V" and the performance numbers
there. It is as simple as running two instances on a machine versus three.

This is why I wanted to see Hyper-V included in SBS2008 or at least as an
added download. In some places I could see running SBS2008 as a virtual
client, but more often than not I would like to see SBS2008 running as a
virtual HOST.

This would allow me to do as I do now with VMWare (and just one box and no
extra operating system license) and have a test Vista and a test XP client OS
that I boot up to test changes to.

So I can only hope that Microsoft reconsiders this limitation.

  kj [SBS MVP] replied...

This would be a three layer / tier approach as VMware is the third.

Layer one in your approach would be SBS. Layer 2 is your virtualization OS
(VMware) running on top of  SBS. Layer three your SBS 03 implementation. In
this case all are layered one atop the other.

So, in the approach SG recommended, was to have the first tier Hyperv Server
(free download).

Then Install SBS2008 as guest os #1. 2003Std as guest OS#2, and other guests
as you need.
- two tiers, two license purchases. One virtualization and none of the
production OS dependency upon any other.

What's your issue with this approach?


--
/kj

  Rosewoo replied...

(Ugh, another post not showing up)

Maybe I'm being too simplistic with my thought process here.

Currently I have a handful of SBS2003 boxes where I have either Virtual
Server running or VMware. I use the virtual machines to host legacy operating
systems that are required by third party applications or test environments.
So I am already very familiar with quite a few  of the benefits of virtual
computing. I also have for my own use Server 2008 w/ Hyper V that I also use
for test environments.

In both of these scenarios one thing has remained constant, the more
operating systems you are running, the less resources you have.

So, I was really hoping that SBS2008 would support being a virtual host so
that I could continue doing exactly what I had been doing with either Virtual
Server or Vmware. One example I had in mind for my first SBS2008 roll out
would be one machine running SBS2008 and a virtual copy of Server 2003 that
is used for their third party application.  TWO instances, one actual and one
virtual.

Now, if I want to go the "supported scenario" route, I will have to run
Server 2008, and virtually run SBS2008 and Server 2003. Going back to what I
said, there have to be less resources left for each OS since we have THREE
running.

What I will instead do is run SBS2008 and Vmware. This way I can have just
TWO operating systems going, and not take that performance hit of having yet
another OS running.

YES, I know Hyper-V does some fantastic work in virtualization and making
system resources available to the operating systems that need it. Vmware does
a very good job of this as well. From here only doing a direct benchmark and
doing a full TCO comparison will really tell us much of anything. But until
someone shows me different with real numbers, my experience and basic
reasoning tells me that I will get better performance from running two
operating systems than I will if I run three.

Again, supported solution non withstanding.

  kj [SBS MVP] replied...

Only in the later case is the real Virtualization technology making the most
of the hardware. By using a very thin and minimal resource Hypervisor
technology you can acheive the most with the least and "waste" the least on
the Virtualization software.

Put up Hyper-V in Server 2008 core or HyperV server for the slimest layer
pressently possible.



--
/kj

  SuperGumby [SBS MVP] replied...

In your scenario you have an OS on the hardware (level 1), an
application(level 2) running on the OS then provides a virtual environment
that allows you to run further OS's (level 3).

What we are suggesting is that you will get better performance by running
the hypervisor (level 1) directly on the hardware and putting all OS's into
level 2.

Whether you use the free 'Hyper-V Server' or ESXi at the hypervisor level is
up to you, both products work well but there are differences.

Though 'Windows Hyper-V Server' sounds like an OS from MS it is nothing more
than those components necessary to act as hypervisor (do you imagine MS
giving away a fully functional OS? now that idea _is_ crazy :-). As such it
gives _near_ native performance to the guest OS's, as do other 'direct'
hypervisors (ESX and similar).

There's a series of diagrams on the VMWare site illustrating the difference
in operation between 'application on OS' (VMWare Workstation/Server) and
'hypervisor on hardware' (ESX). You should be able to find them.

since clean and new install mid November 2008. Daily reports stopped yesterday, Exchange tools show email going out (ORF Spam Blocker also shows no email). Advanced management tool under task scheduler shows failed SessionAgent and Systemdataproviders that match either scheduled installed SBS 2008 server which works normally except the Daily reports stopped yesterday. It seemed email was going out but recipient didn't get the report. Moreover, task scheduler shows failed Before we moving on, I would like to know that: 1. Besides the daily report email issue, does normal internal / external Exchange mail flow work fine? 2. Have you tried with other users as the report email recipient? Does that work? 3. Does the "Generate and E-mail report" option works if you manually click it to send a report email by force? Based on the current situation, we first need to narrow down whether the please follow the steps in articles below: Generate and e-mail a network report http: / / technet.microsoft.com / en-us / library / cc513963.aspx Now, please check if the mail recipient receives this report. If he / she receives, it indicates both the report system and email system are OK, the new daily report works and we just need to focus on

Missing email Windows Server Hi, I am running SBS 2003. One user sent an email and the email is in his Send folder, but the recipient did not received it. I tracked the email on server. The weird thing is there is no that email in the server tracking log, but the email is sit in his Send folder. I searched the recipients whole mailbox, and he did not receive the email for sure. All other emails are OK, just this particular one. Need help!!! Any help then log into another computer and open the user's Outlook, when I resend the email in the Send folder, it stuck in the Outbox this time. Exchange do not like

way for 2 to 3 years now with hardly any problems. We have our Outlook email files are stored on the network, as well as a bunch of our other data customers. We have maybe 800-1200 active customers at any time. I might make an email to tell them about a sale or something. I use software to send out the email to limit how many it sends out, so I do not get blocked for sending is not their problem. Outlook is on the network (again not Verizon's problem) and email is through Yahoo! (again not Verizon's problem). Any ideas what I should tell our are not around what do we do? We do not even have passwords to our email, so let us say we are at a trade show in Florida, we cannot even you up and working, if you like. It may take me about half hour, tops. Email me for more info. . . do not forget to remove that part. . . aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org work related. They should be related if you ask me. So, we have also had email trouble where one lady recently stopped working for us. We wanted to leave her email working for a bit, but forward them to someone else. This way we never have

to be in the correct domain groups. The connection attempt fails with a message that account must be in the WSUS Admin or WSUS Reporters group. If on the server running WSUS the domain account is placed directly into the WSUS Reporters group there is no difference. If however it Wsus admin console completes / works, showing that all else is in place. When the domain account is flowing to the server's Wsus Reporters group via the domain group (or when The server running WSUS was initially configured to log all NTFS access failures by any account anywhere, and none are being recorded to the event logs. I have reviewed the webservice that BUILTIN \ Administrators is a member of MACHINE \ WSUS Administrators. Have you placed the domain account in the MACHINE \ WSUS Administrators group? If so, what were the results? Nothing in your in Wsus Reporters when this happens Then I must be using the wrong terminology. The account is attempting to use the remote console mmc installed on a domain joined machine when this fails to connect if the account is not in the Administrators group of the server where WSUS runs. It is not machine local groups cannot nest. Same failure to connect. Similar happens with a machine local account defined on the server running WSUS. If it is in either of the two groups

lame antispam and spoofing policies Windows Server At 23:00 EST our accounts stopped collecting email from Earthlink. I could not log on to my account to check my passwords. I started a chat with Earthlink. They stated that they changed some lame security department thinks that plain text user names and passwords used to collect email is a great idea. If you think I am wrong let me know. If you may I help you today? jimbehing@d mindspring.com: I cannot log on to my email. I cannot log in to my account to check passwords. Earthlink domain Spencer T: Hello, I will assist you with the issue Spencer T: Click on the link below and then login with your complete email address and password and let me know the result. Spencer T: http: / / webmail.earthlink.net com: username or password incorrect Spencer T: Let me know have you entered the complete email address? Spencer T: And password In correct case? jimbehing@d mindspring.com: I have had this account for 12-15 years. Nothing new and I know my name, password and how to