"MyGposts" <mygposts[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3876b20-8644-4f10-9554-d083410c446d[ at ]40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > We have this set up running for the last 6 months and it seems to be
> working fine.
> We have about 30GB of updates stored in this virtual machine with no
> problems, but I just read in another internet post that your should
> not store the updates in the virtual machine.
The recommendations against storing large volumes of files in a VM are
typically a function of how the VHD is deployed.
On Virtual Server 2005 where VHDs may be deployed on a low-throughput simple
volume, or on a software-based mirror or raid5 array, the file I/O traffic
from a server that needs a library that large could be negatively
impacted -- not to mention the general risks from severe fragmentation of
the VHD that would be caused by that much file storage.
If you're using a SAN on a Hyper-V Server,
or you have a dedicated physical volume linked to the VW2005 VM for file
storage,
or if you're willing to invest appropriate amounts of admin time in keeping
both the virtual filesystem defragmented, as well as the physical filesystem
hosting the VHD,
then the only real issue is a peformance issue... realizing that, unlike a
physical WSUS Server, where multiple threads can be doing file I/O on
multiple files servicing the WSUS clients -- in a VM/VHD, there's
essentially one channel of file I/O on the physical machine and all of the
WSUS client servicing is being accomplished by physical reads from a single
VHD file.
> Should we expect problems and make changes?
You should anticipate the *potential* for issues if you don't optimize the
environment, and invest sufficient effort in maintaining the virtual and
physical filesystems.
In reality, though, I imagine the only actual impact would be a loss of
performance under load.
You might consider asking this question in the VirtualServer newsgroup
(microsoft.public.virtualserver) in terms of the more generic
fileserver-on-VM scenario.
I don't know of any reason *not* to virtualize a fileserver, but you do need
to ensure you have the appropriately configured disk subsystems in such
scenarios.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|