Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Best way to virtualize on a Dedicated Server
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Best way to virtualize on a Dedicated Server

AlcachofasAlcachofas Member
edited November 2015 in Help

Hi there,

I just bought a dedicated server at SoYouStart, the E3-SSD-3 one (Intel Xeon E3 1245v2, 32GB RAM and 3x120 SSD).

I would like to create 25 virtual machines running Lubuntu, what options do I have to do so? I tried with Windows Hyper-V, but I believe the resources are not so good optimized.

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Any recommendation of what type of server should I get for this?

Comments

  • IgniteServersIgniteServers Member
    edited November 2015

    ProxMox may be a good start free and open source virtualization.

    Thanked by 1elgs
  • 25 is massively overselling on a quad core machine. but hyper-v will be one of the best or then kvm (and hyper-v is free btw)

  • AndreixAndreix Member, Host Rep
    edited November 2015

    @TarZZ92 said:
    (and hyper-v is free btw)

    But Windows is not.

    Thanked by 1ehab
  • @Andreix said:
    But Windows is not.

    But he said he wanted to run Lubuntu so no need for a Windows License.

  • exception0x876exception0x876 Member, Host Rep, LIR

    I recommend good old OpenVZ if all virtual machines are Lubuntu, so you can save some resources.

  • AndreixAndreix Member, Host Rep
    edited November 2015

    @AshleyUk said:

    So, nowadays hyper-v runs on Lubuntu ?

  • @TarZZ92 said:
    25 is massively overselling on a quad core machine. but hyper-v will be one of the best or then kvm (and hyper-v is free btw)

    Is there any server under $50 that could handle 25 machines without problems? There are VPS offers that cost less than $1 a month, theoretically doing it on a self-managed dedicated server should be cheaper!

  • @Andreix said:

    Hyper-V Server 2012 is completely free.

  • AndreixAndreix Member, Host Rep

    @AshleyUk said:
    Hyper-V Server 2012 is completely free.

    Yeah, it seems so. I made a confusion with Windows Server 2012.

  • TarZZ92 said: 25 is massively overselling on a quad core machine. but hyper-v will be one of the best or then kvm (and hyper-v is free btw)

    ~1/10 of a core dedicated to every VM is not so much oversold, err..

    That E3 scores 9000, devided by 25 leaves the performance of something like a Celeron or Atom..

    So should work, not super fast, but hey, you're looking to cram it seems so why not

  • @Alcachofas said:
    Is there any server under $50 that could handle 25 machines without problems? There are VPS offers that cost less than $1 a month, theoretically doing it on a self-managed dedicated server should be cheaper!

    Ah, lowendeconomics...

  • Andreix said: But Windows is not.

    no shit.. but hyper-v supports linux too.

  • classy said: ~1/10 of a core dedicated to every VM is not so much oversold, err..

    anything more than a core (4 cores or 8 cores etc) is technically overselling (that means selling threads as cores too)

  • @TarZZ92 said:
    anything more than a core (4 cores or 8 cores etc) is technically overselling (that means selling threads as cores too)

    What you said were true if everybody were doing video encoding all the time. In reality, most of the time the CPUs are quite idle. So I believe it's more fair to judge the oversellness by overall host CPU usage than the vms/cores ratio.

  • elgs said: What you said were true if everybody were doing video encoding all the time. In reality, most of the time the CPUs are quite idle. So I believe it's more fair to judge the oversellness by overall host CPU usage than the vms/cores ratio.

    well no.

    if you assign a vps 1 core that means u have 3 left. 3 more VPS using per core that means server is full, then after that it's overselling load does not matter much.

  • TarZZ92 said: anything more than a core (4 cores or 8 cores etc) is technically overselling (that means selling threads as cores too)

    That's like saying every process or software thread needs its own CPU core / thread - not really realistic don't you think? ;-)

  • classy said: That's like saying every process or software thread needs its own CPU core / thread - not really realistic don't you think? ;-)

    changes nothing it's still overselling.

    Thanked by 1century1stop
  • TarZZ92 said: changes nothing it's still overselling.

    No you're not. CPU is always shared unless explicitly offered as dedicated cores.

    Probably want to call it "overcommitment" if anything, as you're not necessarily selling something

  • Any recommendation of what type of server should I get for this?

  • century1stopcentury1stop Member
    edited November 2015

    le troll.......
    >>btw there's no "best way" to virtualize a server per say

  • classy said: No you're not. CPU is always shared unless explicitly offered as dedicated cores.

    Yes you are.

  • technically having shared cores is overselling, unless you explicitly bind virtual machines to each individual core specifically.

  • RIYADRIYAD Member, Patron Provider

    you can use proxmox (Free)

    or

    virtualizor (KVM) ($9/m)

  • classy said: That E3 scores 9000, devided by 25 leaves the performance of something like a Celeron or Atom..

    13k not 9 :)

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/4002327

  • You'll be fine to do this if you're not selling the servers and are using them for your own purposes. It's more than powerful enough for 25 VMs running a varient of Ubuntu.

Sign In or Register to comment.