Best server OS for a VM cluster

[Uber_Beluga]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm getting some new hardware soon and I'm planning to completely format my personal server and start fresh.

The plan is to run a dedicated VM for each service that the server performs. Just standard things consumers need servers for... low traffic PHP webhosting, personal 'cloud' storage, torrenting and perhaps a few other things down the line.

 

My question is the following... What, in your opinion, is best for the job of being the hardware installed OS and why?

The following are the criteria I have currently considered in order of importance:

 

load implications - How much resource will the OS hog to itself? I've heard windows is worst than Linux variants here, true? The hardware isn't great, 775 based currently, but likely to improve over time.

Ease of use - I'm slightly attached to GUIs, I am comfortable with CLIs within my OS and will even consider an entirely CLI based OS, but I would rather not go down that route.

Remote access - I currently use Team viewer, but need any easy way to control my host OS when I need to create a new VM or increase the resources on a VM which is being used heavily at a particular time.

Licensing options - Linux distros are more or less free; I can install windows illegitimately, but I'm trying to move away from that stuff these days.

 

There are likely other things I should be considering, so, let me know... What OS do you think is best for this task and why?

[Snooli]

Don't think about Windows at all, they have terrible problems managing one user, let alone 2 and you want to run multiple VMs.

When it comes to Linux, not a lot wil be changed amog distros. So either Debian/Ubuntu if you plan to use the main system alone. If not, use what Linus did for his 7 gamers, 1 MoBo. It has a built-in web UI which is really good.

[MeshFile]

Hyper-v or ESXi.

[brwainer]

Lots of people including myself run Hyper-V, you can get Hyper-V Server and the Remote Server Administration Toolkit for free. Hyper-V Server is a cut down version of Windows that only does Hyper-V, and only internally gives you a PowerShell as it runs in Server Core mode, you use the Hyper-V control software from RSAT on another computer to make VMs and change settings, and Server Manager from RSAT to manage the rest of its settings. Hyper-V is set up put of the box expecting that the server and the computer you administer it from are in the same AD domain, but you can add security exceptions to make it work normally.

 

The other major brand choice is ESXi, which has a free license version that AFAIK supports everything but clustering. You administer an ESXi server through an HTTP(S) server running on ESXi.

 

the main open source option right now is proxmox, which I know very little about.

[Uber_Beluga]

Thanks for the quality answers guys. I had never heard of these dedicated VM host OS's like Hyper-V, ESXi or proxmox.

It sounds like this is definitely the way to go rather than installing a normal OS with a VM program added on.

 

I'll read up on each and see which suits me best.

Hyper-V is quite common in the industry so it would be good to have some experience with that, but the expectation of an AD domain puts me off slightly. Let the research commence

 

Thanks again guys.

[toxicnos]

I really like VMware ESXi, it is very simple to manage via the vSphere client. You can load ISO's directly from your local hard drive to the server and you can use remote console into the host VM very easily. I know this sounds like a VMware ad but I just really like ESXi. Oh yea it's free too!

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Uber_Beluga said:

Thanks for the quality answers guys. I had never heard of these dedicated VM host OS's like Hyper-V, ESXi or proxmox.

It sounds like this is definitely the way to go rather than installing a normal OS with a VM program added on.

 

I'll read up on each and see which suits me best.

Hyper-V is quite common in the industry so it would be good to have some experience with that, but the expectation of an AD domain puts me off slightly. Let the research commence

 

Thanks again guys.

ESXi is by far the most widely used, and by far I mean way out in the lead, followed by Hyper-V then I think KVM.

 

ESXi:

Pros - Proven extremely reliable, low resource overhead, good hardware support

Cons - To get the class leading features you must pay for it (You won't need them)

 

Hyper-V

Pros - Very stable, best hardware support, Live Migration is free

Cons - Highest resource overhead (still low though), advanced features requires you to pay for SCVMM

 

KVM (My knowledge is limited here since I don't use it)

Pros - Very Stable, very good hardware support, many 3rd party product vendors use as OEM hypervisor for their product

Cons - Lacking in advanced features and management tools (3rd part products adds these and not a concern for you)

 

Keep in mind I am a VMware user at home and work but I do also use Hyper-V to keep skilled in this area and when it is better to do so.

[conspiravision]

ESX-i ... and only ESX-i

[Andrew_C]

I'm with almost everyone else. ESXi is the way to go.

[Blake]

10 hours ago, Snooli said:

Don't think about Windows at all, they have terrible problems managing one user, let alone 2 and you want to run multiple VMs.

When it comes to Linux, not a lot wil be changed amog distros. So either Debian/Ubuntu if you plan to use the main system alone. If not, use what Linus did for his 7 gamers, 1 MoBo. It has a built-in web UI which is really good.

Whatever helps yous sleep. oh would you look at the time, it's 1994 again.

10 hours ago, MeshFile said:

Hyper-v or ESXi.

Correct Answer.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, Snooli said:

Don't think about Windows at all, they have terrible problems managing one user, let alone 2 and you want to run multiple VMs.

When it comes to Linux, not a lot wil be changed amog distros. So either Debian/Ubuntu if you plan to use the main system alone. If not, use what Linus did for his 7 gamers, 1 MoBo. It has a built-in web UI which is really good.

You know what would solve the user management issue, if they invented something like I dunno lets call it Active Directory or LDAP. You could go even further and have policies that can be applied to users or computers, could name it something like Group Policy. If only these things existed.... and there were also opensource implementations of these *cough* SAMBA *cough*.

 

Sarcasm aside user management etc is done best by Windows and is one of the core reasons why businesses use it. If there truly were all in one self contained free alternatives that are equally simple to deploy and administer then people would be using these instead of paying for it, that is just good financial sense. Now I'm not advocating the use of Windows in this situation at all, I'm also not saying you can't achieve similar with Linux either because you most certainly can. Just don't go giving out incorrect information.

 

Also what does user management and VM management have to do with each other, totally separate issues.

 

If your finding something too difficult then either you are using the tool for something it was not designed to do or you don't know how to use it. This applies to almost everything not just IT.

[Smite]

I enjoy hyper-v. Each has its pros and cos and they all work relatively the same. Just find one you understand the most and go from there.