> Hi,
>
> Ok, this is going to sound like a somewhat strange/stupid/whatever
> question...
>
> Is it possible to setup two (or more) Win2K Server guests where both
> guests would be using the same (virtual) C: partition?
>
>
> Let me clarify: Assuming that I created "guestA", and then installed
> Win2K Server in guestA. Then, I configured guestA so that it would have
> swap space on say, a 2nd partition, D:, i.e., so that it doesn't use any
> swap space on its C: at all.
>
> Then, I want to create a 2nd Win2K Server guest ("guestB"), and have
> guestB's C: partition be the same (physically) as guestA's C: partition.
>
>
> In case you're wondering, the reason for my question is that I'm trying
> to create a situation that would come close to replicating/emulating a
> configuration that we're experimenting with involving a SAN, where we're
> trying to see if it's possible to have a single (physical) image of
> Win2K Server on the SAN, and then try to boot 2 (or more) physically
> separate servers from this single image.
>
> What I'm thinking is that if I can "share" the C: partition between two
> different VPC guests, then this is similar to having a single Win2K
> image on the SAN.
>
>
> Can this be done with VPC?
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Jim

> In case you're wondering, the reason for my question is that I'm trying
> to create a situation that would come close to replicating/emulating a
> configuration that we're experimenting with involving a SAN, where we're
> trying to see if it's possible to have a single (physical) image of
> Win2K Server on the SAN, and then try to boot 2 (or more) physically
> separate servers from this single image.
>

> Also, with regards to your SAN, a SAN is not designed to have an OS
> installed directly on the SAN. Note that SAN stands for Storage Area
> Network. The idea is that your OS" are installed on servers and that
> they then use _storage_ on the SAN, hence the name.

> MS actually has a whitepaper about doing this (boot from SAN):
>

>
> Hi,
>
> There's a big difference between virtual and physical machines here. You
> asked how you could put VMs on a SAN. Doing a network boot for your host
> too is beyond my knowledge
>
>
> "ohaya" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message news:(email address - cut out)...
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > Thanks, with deference to the details, the scenario you describe is
> > about what I thought. As I asked in my post, assuming that all storage
> > is on SAN (our servers won't have ANY local hard drive) don't you then
> > end up with multiple copies of Win2K3 Standard+VPC on the SAN anyway?
> >
> > For example, Server 1 in your scenario runs Win2K3 Standard (which would
> > be on the SAN, let's call this "host OS image #1") as the host, and runs
> > VPC (which would also be on the SAN) under Win2K3 Standard, and then you
> > have parent.vhd (which would also be on the SAN).
> >
> > Server 2 would be running Win2K3 Standard (which would also be on the
> > SAN, let's call this "host OS image #2"), etc.
> >
> > Jim

> you've provided. This discussion has given me a lot more insight into
> what the potential problems would be.
> Jonathan (Scott, and Paul),
>
> My last post was kind of just "theorizing".
>
> FYI, I wanted to let you all know that I do appreciate the info that
> you've provided. This discussion has given me a lot more insight into
> what the potential problems would be.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's a big difference between virtual and physical machines here. You
>> asked how you could put VMs on a SAN. Doing a network boot for your host
>> too is beyond my knowledge
>>
> .
> .
>>
>> "ohaya" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> > Jonathan,
>> >
>> > Thanks, with deference to the details, the scenario you describe is
>> > about what I thought. As I asked in my post, assuming that all storage
>> > is on SAN (our servers won't have ANY local hard drive) don't you then
>> > end up with multiple copies of Win2K3 Standard+VPC on the SAN anyway?
>> >
>> > For example, Server 1 in your scenario runs Win2K3 Standard (which
>> > would
>> > be on the SAN, let's call this "host OS image #1") as the host, and
>> > runs
>> > VPC (which would also be on the SAN) under Win2K3 Standard, and then
>> > you
>> > have parent.vhd (which would also be on the SAN).
>> >
>> > Server 2 would be running Win2K3 Standard (which would also be on the
>> > SAN, let's call this "host OS image #2"), etc.
>> >
>> > Jim

>
> > FYI, I wanted to let you all know that I do appreciate the info that
> > you've provided. This discussion has given me a lot more insight into
> > what the potential problems would be.
>
> I have one question for you. <g>
>
> How are you going to account for machine specific info on the servers.
> (machine names, IP addresses, AD status, and other things like that) It
> seems like your 2 (or more) machines with one image would be a great idea
> for some things, but I can't get past how the logistics of it would work. A
> differencing drive would work for that, but like you say it really counts as
> separate images.
>
> - Bob Comer

> Bob,
>
> Answer: I don't know :).
>
> I don't want to get into all of the history (again) of this, but
> basically a couple of people (to be unnamed) on our project got it into
> their head(s) that they wanted to:
>
> - Boot from SAN
> - Use the SAN storage for swap space
>
> Basically, they were pushing diskless servers.
>
> Now that I look back, I think the idea of booting off a single image was
> kind of used as "hype" (yes, we can save TONS of $$$$ because we don't
> have to use all that expensive SAN capacity for OS images, and oh, BTW,
> we only have to manage a single OS image) to further these ideas.
>
> I initially was kind of skeptical, and made a bit of a fuss about
> potential riskiness (we potentially will be running 100s of servers),
> and despite the fact that I couldn't find a single server vendor (would
> it surprise you that all the SAN vendors that I talked to said they
> supported this?) who "officially" supported this (and believe me, I
> asked), let me just say that my skepticism was overriden.
>
> Then, after the (decision/) fact, they posed the question, "Gee, will
> this actually work?", which eventually is what started me looking into
> whether or not I could use VPC to "emulate" the environment.
>
> So, I think that you (and the others are about right), both wrt trying
> this with VPC and wrt a real server environment...
>
> Thanks for listening...
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>
>> > FYI, I wanted to let you all know that I do appreciate the info that
>> > you've provided. This discussion has given me a lot more insight into
>> > what the potential problems would be.
>>
>> I have one question for you. <g>
>>
>> How are you going to account for machine specific info on the servers.
>> (machine names, IP addresses, AD status, and other things like that) It
>> seems like your 2 (or more) machines with one image would be a great idea
>> for some things, but I can't get past how the logistics of it would work.
>> A
>> differencing drive would work for that, but like you say it really counts
>> as
>> separate images.
>>
>> - Bob Comer