Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cloud

Last response: in Business Computing
Share
May 17, 2011 5:56:58 PM

hi guys
I am doing a project on setting up a private cloud right now with a server and 2 clients(will change it later on depending on the project's success)
in windows server 2008 R2 using Hyper-v
so give me so guiding tips, and also suggest me some good processor which is cheap and powerfull enough to run this cloud
my current specs are given below
CPU: E7200 core 2 duo oc to 3.6Ghz
Ram: 5GB DDR2
MOBO: MSI P43T-C51
GPU: Palit GTS250 1GB DDR3
HDD: 1295 GB SATA2(2*320 + 500 + 250)

More about : cloud

Anonymous
May 17, 2011 9:57:04 PM

This topic has been moved from the section Networking to section Business Computing by Grumpy9117
May 18, 2011 8:44:14 AM

There is nothing special about a "Cloud", a single server running a single OS and providing a single shared resource could be called a "cloud". Currently "Cloud" is being used as a marketing term to refer to any off-site, administratively separate service. It is impossible to have a "private cloud" as the term cloud is used to refer to a resource that is accessed remotely without you knowing the actual architecture of that infrastructure hosting that resource. Try to think about hotmail / gmail / yahoo mail and such. They offer you a shared resource of email and communications hosting. You access this resource remotely and have no idea about the internal configuration of this resource. You could do much the same with any shared network resource, from communications to file hosting, even to CPU processing (distributed computing).

So the question is, what resources do you want to share out? You could create a "cloud" file share using a single PC running some MS Server's in VM while using DFS and some DNS record magic.
Related resources
May 18, 2011 6:48:18 PM

I disagree with palladin9479's statement that having a private cloud is impossible, although probably very rare. To me, an SOA architecture is, to some extent, cloud as well as one using the service internally doesn't have a clue how it is implemented and doesn't have to. In very large companies where the IT group is in charge of more than just infrastructure, services could be provided to each division that have their own developers; to those developers, this could be seen as a private cloud.

The term has been so vulgarized that it's hard to know what is the true meaning anymore (like 4G which is often used instead of HSPA+ while the later has nothing to do with 4G). I think the initial concept was some hybrid between SOA and clustering. The idea was that you would use a service without exactly knowing where it is located and in turn it could actually be split among many machines. I think this is pretty much in line with palladin9479's definition.

To go back to your initial question, it depends on the type of cloud you want to build, if it's a storage cloud you will need much more I/O both network and HDD, but for a processing cloud, you might need more CPU power.
May 18, 2011 9:21:11 PM

Zenthar said:
I disagree with palladin9479's statement that having a private cloud is impossible, although probably very rare. To me, an SOA architecture is, to some extent, cloud as well as one using the service internally doesn't have a clue how it is implemented and doesn't have to. In very large companies where the IT group is in charge of more than just infrastructure, services could be provided to each division that have their own developers; to those developers, this could be seen as a private cloud.

The term has been so vulgarized that it's hard to know what is the true meaning anymore (like 4G which is often used instead of HSPA+ while the later has nothing to do with 4G). I think the initial concept was some hybrid between SOA and clustering. The idea was that you would use a service without exactly knowing where it is located and in turn it could actually be split among many machines. I think this is pretty much in line with palladin9479's definition.

To go back to your initial question, it depends on the type of cloud you want to build, if it's a storage cloud you will need much more I/O both network and HDD, but for a processing cloud, you might need more CPU power.


thanks for the reply guys
Right now its in very small scale just 2 clients and a server so cpu power and all are ok for this i think
also when i was trying to install VMMSSP it was showin 2 errors VMM ADMIN console not installed and MMSQ directory integration, 1st one i couldn't find any way to install it, when i googled it says that its alone with the SQL server 2008 R2 setup but it wasn't (or did i miss anything?) and MMSQ dir integration i activated this feature in server manager and restarted but it still giving this error. I am stuck here :( 
May 19, 2011 1:07:57 AM

Thing is, there is no standardized definition for "Cloud Computing", trust me I tried to find one. There is no ISO certification on what a "Cloud enabled" device is, no standardization for what is technically required for a "cloud". Essentially it's a made up marketing buzz word used to sell IT directors last years tech as something new.

The problem with "private cloud" is the moment the user knows ~anything~ about the infrastructure, its no longer a "cloud". It reverts to the tried and true distributed services architecture (multiple) that we've been using for years. Multiple exchange servers clustered behind a virtual IP / hostname comes to mind. With a DNS alias of "mail" set to point to the virtual IP of the cluster the user would never know what the architecture looks like. They point their client to "mail" and use the provided two part security credentials (UN + PW) and their now utilizing a network service to conduct their work. This is something that's been available for over a decade now, yet is being branded as "new". Now the moment the user knows the actual hostname of any of the exchange servers, its no longer a "cloud", at least not by the marketing definition.

Ultimately "cloud" anything has morphed into an excuse for various IT directors to outsource the IT department and reduce manpower (aka fire people), it doesn't offer anything that hasn't been offered before, but looks really good on a powerpoint slide.
May 19, 2011 7:40:44 AM

palladin9479 said:
Thing is, there is no standardized definition for "Cloud Computing", trust me I tried to find one. There is no ISO certification on what a "Cloud enabled" device is, no standardization for what is technically required for a "cloud". Essentially it's a made up marketing buzz word used to sell IT directors last years tech as something new.

The problem with "private cloud" is the moment the user knows ~anything~ about the infrastructure, its no longer a "cloud". It reverts to the tried and true distributed services architecture (multiple) that we've been using for years. Multiple exchange servers clustered behind a virtual IP / hostname comes to mind. With a DNS alias of "mail" set to point to the virtual IP of the cluster the user would never know what the architecture looks like. They point their client to "mail" and use the provided two part security credentials (UN + PW) and their now utilizing a network service to conduct their work. This is something that's been available for over a decade now, yet is being branded as "new". Now the moment the user knows the actual hostname of any of the exchange servers, its no longer a "cloud", at least not by the marketing definition.

Ultimately "cloud" anything has morphed into an excuse for various IT directors to outsource the IT department and reduce manpower (aka fire people), it doesn't offer anything that hasn't been offered before, but looks really good on a powerpoint slide.

Answer my question dude
there is no point in fighting here ;) 
May 19, 2011 6:16:49 PM

Does that board / BIOS even support hardware assisted virtualisation?
May 19, 2011 8:13:05 PM

stuart72 said:
Does that board / BIOS even support hardware assisted virtualisation?

nope
I got a new pc arranged in lab by my professor.
hey when i tried installing SCVMM its throwing this error "to install vmm server you must be logged on under a domain account that has administrative credentials on the local computer" I am not getting anythin in this.. how to solve this problem? it came when i tried in my lab computer
May 20, 2011 1:48:53 AM

Ok if your HW doesn't have any built in virtualization support, then Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V isn't a good idea. I'd strongly suggest you do a one-over to check your BIOS and manufacturer documentation to make sure it's not just turned off.

My suggestion if your doing this as a "lab" is that you use Oracle (Sun) Virtual Box. The software is free and does an amazing job of virtualizing everything for a desktop lab. It can run with or without HW assisted virtualization and has support for just about every OS you can throw at it.
May 20, 2011 8:17:47 AM

palladin9479 said:
Ok if your HW doesn't have any built in virtualization support, then Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V isn't a good idea. I'd strongly suggest you do a one-over to check your BIOS and manufacturer documentation to make sure it's not just turned off.

My suggestion if your doing this as a "lab" is that you use Oracle (Sun) Virtual Box. The software is free and does an amazing job of virtualizing everything for a desktop lab. It can run with or without HW assisted virtualization and has support for just about every OS you can throw at it.

my PC CPU is E7200 it doesn't have any intel VT support i checked it in Intel site
so you are sayin that instead of using Hyper-V i can use Vrtual box?
I am new this virtualization stuff thats why i am askin some stupid questions.. :) 
May 20, 2011 8:19:10 AM

btw whats this domain account that has administrative credentials ? I did lot of googling but no use
May 20, 2011 9:05:21 AM

I'm not very versed with Microsoft Hyper-V, I mostly use Solaris zones, Virtual-Box and VMware.

It sounds like your machine is part of a domain and your logged in as a regular user. You need to be an administrator on the local system in order to do most of this stuff, you might want to ensure your account has the proper rights.

From what I've been told, Hyper-V will only work on a CPU that supports HW virtualization acceleration. Otherwise your stuck using the other two, which honestly isn't a big issue, Virtual-Box rocks.
May 21, 2011 3:57:36 PM

thanks for the help
but how to use virtualbox to make my cloud?
i've installed it..
May 22, 2011 2:02:54 AM

Hmm you can't really "make" a cloud, there is no special service that is labeled as such. What you do instead is provide a service. The service must be load balanced and distributed in such a way that any one node failing doesn't impact the quality of service.

You can try DNS / AD services as a starter. Create at least two virtual machines and put Windows 2003 / 2008 on them. Setup an active directory on one of them, then join the second one and make it a member server. Make sure you create the DNS as an active directory stored zone and that both virtual machines are listed as name servers.

Now create two more VM's that are going to be file servers. Install 2003 and join to domain. Create a DFS root and store it in active directory. Ensure both machines are replica partners of the DFS root. Install MS Cluster services and configure the two nodes as members of a virtual node. The virtual node will have its own hostname and IP, and you can create a DNS alias record called "fileserver" that points to it. Now any machine on the network can mount "\\fileserver" and get access to the files shared. You will need to create some shared storage between them two, but that is easy. Inside virtualbox add a virtual SCSI adapter to each machine then have both of the machines pointed to the same HDD file.

To do all this your going to have to do some heavy reading on the various technology's involved. And this really is just a thrown together starter lab. Actual production distributed services usually use specialized expensive software, or some form of Unix / Linux cluster software.
May 22, 2011 2:03:07 AM

Hmm you can't really "make" a cloud, there is no special service that is labeled as such. What you do instead is provide a service. The service must be load balanced and distributed in such a way that any one node failing doesn't impact the quality of service.

You can try DNS / AD services as a starter. Create at least two virtual machines and put Windows 2003 / 2008 on them. Setup an active directory on one of them, then join the second one and make it a member server. Make sure you create the DNS as an active directory stored zone and that both virtual machines are listed as name servers.

Now create two more VM's that are going to be file servers. Install 2003 and join to domain. Create a DFS root and store it in active directory. Ensure both machines are replica partners of the DFS root. Install MS Cluster services and configure the two nodes as members of a virtual node. The virtual node will have its own hostname and IP, and you can create a DNS alias record called "fileserver" that points to it. Now any machine on the network can mount "\\fileserver" and get access to the files shared. You will need to create some shared storage between them two, but that is easy. Inside virtualbox add a virtual SCSI adapter to each machine then have both of the machines pointed to the same HDD file.

To do all this your going to have to do some heavy reading on the various technology's involved. And this really is just a thrown together starter lab. Actual production distributed services usually use specialized expensive software, or some form of Unix / Linux cluster software.
May 23, 2011 1:08:25 PM

Ho nice they are proveding to networking site of like [u= http://roedvin.dk/ ] Det levende s√łkor [/u] a google, facebook. ect they site of most imp site of business comuting
!