Virtualization on Processors that don't specifically support it
 

I work for a non-profit and we were just donated three Dell Poweredge 6650's, which, among other things, support 4 Intel Xeon 32-bit processors.

I'm brainstorming about the best way to use them and wanted to make one a Virtual Machine host to consolidate several smaller servers we have, but Intel didn't add Hardware support for virtualization until the next model up from the highest model processor these servers support, so no VT-x, which means I can't use KVM or some others.

What kind of performance hit would I see if I were to run virtual machines on this server? Without the hardware support, what would be the best virtualization platform to use?

Pretty odd the xeons don't but they may be that old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

Yes, VM's have been around way before support for them in processors and motherboards were available.

From my past experience, I'd get a rough guess that they may run at 60% to 80% native speeds. Very simple to test. Some versions of VM's were locked to not work on a non vt-x processor but some versions do.

well, having worked with 6650's a LOT, I can really advise you to throw them away, as far as possible.
seriously, a current cheap desktop machine can run more and heavier VMs than those monsters. and we haven't even started on their power consumption, or supportability, price and availability of replacement parts. the 6650s look impressive, but they are really not that good in 2012

Having said that, I do understand you may not have any budget whatsoever, so how about you write up a list of services you need running, some machine specs for the hardware you currently have, and we'll try and brainstorm. The general assumption being - don't virtualize on the 6G servers at all, just try to consolidate services in a clever way

I am still thinking about selling them on ebay, but I'm not sure if I can get a decent amount for them (still researching that). I agree and would much rather build a server with some Core i7's that is closer to what I need. I think 3 6650's are overkill for our needs right now, though in the future we will be expanding to have 200 or more users (we're at about 50 right now).

Basically, the services we have and/or want on our network are:

- Content Filter/Firewall (Untangle Server)
- Squid proxy for caching, delay pools, and some reporting
- (wimpy for what it needs to do) Windows Server 2008: Active Directory, Print Server, File Server

Wants:
- We're a school and want a portal for students, teachers, and staff to access on the local network to check/update grades and stuff like that, so a LAMP setup most likely
- Exchange Server or something similar is wanted by the higher-ups, though we don't have the resources to pull that off and the 6650's don't fit the minimum requirements for it (states 64-bit only for production servers)
- A much better file-server: our's has plenty of space (2TB), but it's a 32-bit processor with 4GB of RAM, which is showing some performance issues
- an automated backup system for all servers

I consolidated the processors and RAM in the 6650's into one, so the one has 4GB of RAM and 4 Xeon 2 Ghz 32-bit processors (no VT support). I also wanted to virtualize for the management benefits it gives (taking/restoring a snapshot of a VM for example). I don't think virtualizing the file server would be the best idea, but I'm not sure on that.

The main part of those tend to be an ability to deliver files over the network. To that end they may perform as say an iSCSI type server for thin clients or such.

I'd load a vm or two on it just to see how well they do perform. But dyasny offers first hand advice. I have an old 1650sc, it never seemed to perform as a workstation but did do well as a server. Fast nic's full hardware raid. As noted above power draw is high. Starting to be hard to find parts.

if you leave out the windozy stuff, and go over to either the basic user management samba allows for, or something like freeIPA/389/openLDAP, plus a mailserver like zimbra, you'll get all the right features in a single Linux box. It will not perform too well, because, well, 4Gb or RAM isn't much nowadays, but it can do the job to an extent. I don't see the need for virtualization in your setup, besides virtualization being a cool thing to do in general terms.

a 32bit file server might run into some issues with large files btw


to sum it up, any subset of the services you have in mind would be better off on their own beefy machine, but if you absolutely must make do with what you have, then just try and get a single big working machine out of the scrap you have, and keep running on that one. If it dies - well, you have a reason to demand budget for something proper, if it doesn't, for a while, you're a hero for making all of that without spending anything but time.

BTW, schools with no IT budget? Where does that happen? I've spent my first 2 years after the army service as a system admin at a highschool, and while not being flooded by money, I've had enough to keep the systems up to date

His tag is Mexico.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind getting away from Windows myself, and with their licensing the way it is, we might not have a choice.

I forgot to mention it earlier, but I am planning on buying more RAM for the server. We might not have much of a budget, but we do have some and I'm just trying to do good with it by using what I have on hand.

With all the info you guys have given, I've decided to offload some services from the file server (User Management, Print Server, etc) and then use it for the local web server for the student portal I'm working on.

I should let you guys know that we're not really representative of the average school in Mexico. We're a non-profit, private school. I'm not sure about most public schools in Mexico, but here in Ensenada they're not too bad and have tech programs that would rival some schools in the states.

Thanks for all the info.

good luck :)