What is it?

 

Goods/bads?

 

Why would someone do it?

 

How beefy a system to make it work properly?

 

I was thinking it would be like having an ubuntu server and an unraid server in one computer. Where unRaid handles all the storage, and ubuntu runs all the programs/services. That way unraid would stay dedicated to what's it's best at: mixed drive raid, and ubuntu would handle all the other stuff: plugins, services, etc. that already has excellent software written for it, updated packages, a package system etc. Am I off base here?

 

thanks!

What is Virtualization?

 

Virtualization is using one computer to host many other 'guest' computers. Think of it a OS in a window on the main system.

 

Have 6 servers that use little CPU time but can't be run on the same OS? (Such as a Domain Controller with *anything* else, a low use SQL server, a Exchange server, File Server, Linux Web Server, and a couple of small remote desktop hosts) - put them one one computer where it can run them all. They are separate from each other (and can be separate from the host server - an example, at work I have a Terminal server running on a ESXi server that can't reach the ESXi server via the network, I also have a web server running on a completely different subnet, that requires going through the main router to reach the ESXi server it's hosted on).

 

You can have multiple virtualization hosts acting in tandem, being able to move guests between the two on the fly. This can allow for a large amount of redundancy, and contingency planning. Have your virtualization server die? If properly configured it'll continue after X seconds on the 2nd virtual server, in the same state (plus or minus X seconds depending on how fast you replicate block changes)

 

Good side of virtualization? Allows an almost unprecedented level of flexibility on one computer.

 

Downside? can create a *lot* of loss if the host server goes down and you don't have it properly backed up or don't have a redundant server. Doesn't always require better hardware, but if you've got 7 servers running on one virtual host? You want to ensure that your virtual host is very stable/sturdy/etc. One other downside is you need to think about your disk & network access. If you've got multiple machines doing disk intensive tasks, you may need to build multiple raid arrays (or if you have the financial abilities) on a SAN. Network access is another, I myself tend to limit guests to 3 per gb nic. This is entirely dependent on their network load of course.

 

As far as performance required? That is a completely different (large) post.

 

----

 

Yes, it's sat eve, and I sit at home waiting for my new unraid virtual server to complete it's initial parity check so I can start moving data. AKA I'm bored and don't want to hit the bars.

How can I use this to help out my unRaid experience?

 

 

How can I use this to help out my unRaid experience?

what exactly you need help with?

 

virtualization is not used to help out with UnRaid experience.

it is used to consolidate hardware to save energy, make administration a bit simpler

abstract the hardware level to simplify updates to hardware. etc.

you know if you need to run several things at the same time, like a torrent box, unraid, a webserver, domain controller, maybe a desktop or two for various needs.

instead of having 5-6 machines each with it's own set of hardware , PSU , UPS

you can consolidate them into 1 or 2 machines and save some on energy bill, and maybe even on parts .

Currently I have multiple plugins installed into unRaid:

Plex, Subsonic, sabnzbd, couchpotato, sickbeard, apc ups deamon, transmission, and samba sharing for all virtual User drives.

 

I was thinking that those plugins would run better/faster, especially Plex transcoding, if they were running on a virtualized Ubuntu server that's on the same box as the unRaid stuff.

 

unRaid is great at some specific things, but not so hot at other stuff like: plugins, latest software, regular automatic updates, etc. that require a large user base, and active development.

 

Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree?

 

Why do other people chose to virtualize their setups?

No you are right, unraid first and foremost a file server. All other things are add on by adventures users :-)

 

And virtualizing is a good way to go, providing your hardware can handle it.

1. Make sure your hardware can support vt-d/amd-v iommu on both bios and cpu .

You will need this to properly virtualize unraid.

In addition you will need at least quad core cpu and for transcoding at least 8gb ram 16 is better.

 

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Virtualizing Unraid only serves a purpose if you have a unraid server, a encoding server, a web server, a SQL server, etc and so forth, all separate. Virtualization allows you to consolidate all of those computers into one.

 

For me? I was able to consolidate my encoding server (I've got about 24 to 36 hours of video to encode a day), along with a SQL server for my XBMC pcs, and a ubuntu web browser. Virtualization allowed me to take those three computers, (6 cpu cores, 3 cpus, 6 gigs of ram) into one machine with 8 cores, 32 gigs of ram. I spent more in hardware to virtualize those three computers into one, but it helped educate me for my work, and ... was kind of fun. In the long run I'll save a couple of dollars a year in electricity, but ultimately, the only reason I did it was for fun.

 

The only advantage is ... one physical box for all of my servers. Ultimately one can say it's more energy efficient, or anything along those lines, but ultimately, it's used to take 5 servers that have little use, into one server. Regardless of OS, physical hardware, etc. It just combines the 3 or 5 or 10 into one server.

 

It's more expensive. It requires hardware that is capable of virtualization. It's not for everyone.

 

Worked for me. But, I'm a geek (seriously, geek) and computers are my hobby and my profession. I don't mind spending the extra time configuring things of this nature, it'll help me professionally, and is quite the education.

 

Currently I have multiple plugins installed into unRaid:

Plex, Subsonic, sabnzbd, couchpotato, sickbeard, apc ups deamon, transmission, and samba sharing for all virtual User drives.

 

I was thinking that those plugins would run better/faster, especially Plex transcoding, if they were running on a virtualized Ubuntu server that's on the same box as the unRaid stuff.

 

unRaid is great at some specific things, but not so hot at other stuff like: plugins, latest software, regular automatic updates, etc. that require a large user base, and active development.

 

Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree?

 

Why do other people chose to virtualize their setups?

I second KC's post...

 

For me, it was the just next step after having an unRaid box running solid for a bit.  I like to tinker/learn so virtualization was just a pet project that allows tremendous flexibility.

How stable is it? Compared to a normal installation of ... three year old lightly used Windows XP? Brand new Ubuntu install? etc.? Heavily used, plug-in city unRaid?

 

What if the linux instance crashes but unRaid keeps chugging along? Restart the whole thing? Or is it possible to only restart the one 'machine' without restarting the other?

How stable is it?

 

It depends on the hypervisor; but ESXi (the most common one used for virtualizing UnRAID) is VERY stable.

 

 

... is it possible to only restart the one 'machine' without restarting the other?

 

Absolutely.  You can "pull the power" on a virtual machine by simply "powering it off" with a command to the hypervisor.