>I have a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server with dual Quad Core 2.33Ghz processors,
>8GB of RAM and 5 73GB SAS HD's. It also has a dual broadcom nic and a quad
>intel nic. My goal is to migrate 2 separate SQL 2000 servers to it and
>possibly a NAV server. The SQL servers would have 29 and 50 users
>respectively and NAV would have 65 clients. Both SQL servers host
>databases that are under 5GB each.
>
> My plan was to have a 73GB mirror and then a 146GB raid5. I was going to
> use Windows 2008 Enterprise x64 as a host on the mirror, and then have 3
> Windows 2003 x86 virtual servers with the SQL 2000 servers & NAV server on
> the raid. I would like them to perform as well or better than the
> hardware they are being migrated from. (They are both being migrated from
> Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz machines, one with 2gb ram and the other with 1gb ram and
> SCSI hard drives). I figure if I give each machine half a quad core and
> 2gb of ram, it should perform just as well as the old server if not
> better. Am I right?
>
> I am new to virtual servers and would like some criticism and
> recommendations. I wasn't planning on using Hyper-V because I noticed
> that it cannot be managed (or there is difficulty managing) it from
> Windows XP. All of the workstations on my network are XP 32 bit.
>
> Thanks in advance for all and any of your input.
>

> Thank you both for your recommendations. I will take both advices and use
> Hyper-V for my VM's and use all drives in a single array. Do you
> recommend that I use software-raid or hardware-raid, considering the
> specifications of the machine and the possibility that I would like to add
> more drives to the array at some point?
>
> "Adam" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>I have a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server with dual Quad Core 2.33Ghz
>>processors, 8GB of RAM and 5 73GB SAS HD's. It also has a dual broadcom
>>nic and a quad intel nic. My goal is to migrate 2 separate SQL 2000
>>servers to it and possibly a NAV server. The SQL servers would have 29
>>and 50 users respectively and NAV would have 65 clients. Both SQL servers
>>host databases that are under 5GB each.
>>
>> My plan was to have a 73GB mirror and then a 146GB raid5. I was going to
>> use Windows 2008 Enterprise x64 as a host on the mirror, and then have 3
>> Windows 2003 x86 virtual servers with the SQL 2000 servers & NAV server
>> on the raid. I would like them to perform as well or better than the
>> hardware they are being migrated from. (They are both being migrated from
>> Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz machines, one with 2gb ram and the other with 1gb ram
>> and SCSI hard drives). I figure if I give each machine half a quad core
>> and 2gb of ram, it should perform just as well as the old server if not
>> better. Am I right?
>>
>> I am new to virtual servers and would like some criticism and
>> recommendations. I wasn't planning on using Hyper-V because I noticed
>> that it cannot be managed (or there is difficulty managing) it from
>> Windows XP. All of the workstations on my network are XP 32 bit.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for all and any of your input.
>>
>
>

>I have a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server with dual Quad Core 2.33Ghz processors,
>8GB of RAM and 5 73GB SAS HD's. It also has a dual broadcom nic and a quad
>intel nic. My goal is to migrate 2 separate SQL 2000 servers to it and
>possibly a NAV server. The SQL servers would have 29 and 50 users
>respectively and NAV would have 65 clients. Both SQL servers host
>databases that are under 5GB each.
>
> My plan was to have a 73GB mirror and then a 146GB raid5. I was going to
> use Windows 2008 Enterprise x64 as a host on the mirror, and then have 3
> Windows 2003 x86 virtual servers with the SQL 2000 servers & NAV server on
> the raid. I would like them to perform as well or better than the
> hardware they are being migrated from. (They are both being migrated from
> Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz machines, one with 2gb ram and the other with 1gb ram and
> SCSI hard drives). I figure if I give each machine half a quad core and
> 2gb of ram, it should perform just as well as the old server if not
> better. Am I right?
>
> I am new to virtual servers and would like some criticism and
> recommendations. I wasn't planning on using Hyper-V because I noticed
> that it cannot be managed (or there is difficulty managing) it from
> Windows XP. All of the workstations on my network are XP 32 bit.
>
> Thanks in advance for all and any of your input.
>

>Thank you both for your recommendations. I will take both advices and use
>Hyper-V for my VM's and use all drives in a single array. Do you recommend
>that I use software-raid or hardware-raid, considering the specifications of
>the machine and the possibility that I would like to add more drives to the
>array at some point?
>

>I have a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server with dual Quad Core 2.33Ghz processors,
>8GB of RAM and 5 73GB SAS HD's. It also has a dual broadcom nic and a quad
>intel nic. My goal is to migrate 2 separate SQL 2000 servers to it and
>possibly a NAV server. The SQL servers would have 29 and 50 users
>respectively and NAV would have 65 clients. Both SQL servers host
>databases that are under 5GB each.
>
> My plan was to have a 73GB mirror and then a 146GB raid5. I was going to
> use Windows 2008 Enterprise x64 as a host on the mirror, and then have 3
> Windows 2003 x86 virtual servers with the SQL 2000 servers & NAV server on
> the raid. I would like them to perform as well or better than the
> hardware they are being migrated from. (They are both being migrated from
> Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz machines, one with 2gb ram and the other with 1gb ram and
> SCSI hard drives). I figure if I give each machine half a quad core and
> 2gb of ram, it should perform just as well as the old server if not
> better. Am I right?
>
> I am new to virtual servers and would like some criticism and
> recommendations. I wasn't planning on using Hyper-V because I noticed
> that it cannot be managed (or there is difficulty managing) it from
> Windows XP. All of the workstations on my network are XP 32 bit.
>
> Thanks in advance for all and any of your input.
>