I have many clients who could benefit from having a terminal server.
However, the cost of an additional server for these small businesses
has scared them away.

Assuming the SBS box has enough horse power, can I run Virtual Server
with Windows Server 2003 on it and Terminal Services to accomodate?

Anyone have any experience? Any downsides worth mentioning?

Thank you.

-dave

p.s. Is running Virtual PC an option? I haven't messed with
Microsoft's Virtual PC/Server products so I'm not familiar with the
differences.

Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by Charlie

Charlie
Sun May 04 16:56:35 PDT 2008

Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it has the
disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run without a logon. Virtual
Server doesn't have those limitations.

Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The biggest
problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM, maximum. That means that
if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small amount on a
TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a bit starved,
one suspects.

One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of Windows,
which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition), and run both SBS and
the Terminal Server as guest OSs.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Dave W" <mtdave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1efb297d-aecb-460c-acf9-253ef41d8202@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I have many clients who could benefit from having a terminal server.
> However, the cost of an additional server for these small businesses
> has scared them away.
>
> Assuming the SBS box has enough horse power, can I run Virtual Server
> with Windows Server 2003 on it and Terminal Services to accomodate?
>
> Anyone have any experience? Any downsides worth mentioning?
>
> Thank you.
>
> -dave
>
> p.s. Is running Virtual PC an option? I haven't messed with
> Microsoft's Virtual PC/Server products so I'm not familiar with the
> differences.


Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by Leythos

Leythos
Sun May 04 17:20:35 PDT 2008

In article <EEBFE059-F484-4723-B636-34C5B6533CE6@microsoft.com>,
charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says...
> Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it has the
> disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run without a logon. Virtual
> Server doesn't have those limitations.
>
> Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The biggest
> problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM, maximum. That means that
> if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small amount on a
> TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a bit starved,
> one suspects.
>
> One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of Windows,
> which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition), and run both SBS and
> the Terminal Server as guest OSs.

I was looking at licensing, with 2008 this is economical as you get
rights for 4 Virtual servers, with 2003 you have to pay for each
instance.

I would also think that you would have to install the first OS to be the
VM manager, then SBS, then the Terminal Server OS, so that would be 3
installs on one box?

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by Charlie

Charlie
Sun May 04 17:28:19 PDT 2008

Actually, you get rights to 4 VMs with Server 2k3 R2 as well. <g> Just not
with Server 2k3 pre-R2. But just as with Server 2k8, that's Enterprise ONLY.
(Datacenter is unlimited, I think.)

Given the price difference between Standard and Enterprise, you may not want
to pop for enterprise to only host two VMs.

Yes, you can do this with Server 2k8. There, with standard, you get 1+1
rights. (The parent partition plus one child.) So, if you do this in
Standard 2008, you'd be covered if you ran the parent partition as a mgmt
partition only, child partition as your "plus 1" with Terminal Server, and
then pay for your license for SBS for the second child partition.

And, if you're going to set up a Terminal Server, there are huge advantages
to going to Server 2k8 for it.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22881cdde2dda3879897aa@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <EEBFE059-F484-4723-B636-34C5B6533CE6@microsoft.com>,
> charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says...
>> Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it has the
>> disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run without a logon.
>> Virtual
>> Server doesn't have those limitations.
>>
>> Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The biggest
>> problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM, maximum. That means
>> that
>> if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small amount
>> on a
>> TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a bit
>> starved,
>> one suspects.
>>
>> One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of Windows,
>> which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition), and run both SBS
>> and
>> the Terminal Server as guest OSs.
>
> I was looking at licensing, with 2008 this is economical as you get
> rights for 4 Virtual servers, with 2003 you have to pay for each
> instance.
>
> I would also think that you would have to install the first OS to be the
> VM manager, then SBS, then the Terminal Server OS, so that would be 3
> installs on one box?
>
> --
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)


Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by SuperGumby

SuperGumby
Sun May 04 18:05:57 PDT 2008

and note, that 1+1 right is Server Core+Hyper-V only on the parent. (Charlie
knows this but I don't think it's obvious from his statement)

You _may_ be able to install other 'core only' roles (Read Only DC, etc...)
but I'm not actually sure this is covered by licensing either.

Last time I looked Enterprise was more than four times the cost of Standard
(in AU) so unless you have other E vs S requirements, no, it didn't cut it
just on the virtual side of things.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:30CC8366-854D-4407-A6F8-11449486CC4D@microsoft.com...
> Actually, you get rights to 4 VMs with Server 2k3 R2 as well. <g> Just not
> with Server 2k3 pre-R2. But just as with Server 2k8, that's Enterprise
> ONLY. (Datacenter is unlimited, I think.)
>
> Given the price difference between Standard and Enterprise, you may not
> want to pop for enterprise to only host two VMs.
>
> Yes, you can do this with Server 2k8. There, with standard, you get 1+1
> rights. (The parent partition plus one child.) So, if you do this in
> Standard 2008, you'd be covered if you ran the parent partition as a mgmt
> partition only, child partition as your "plus 1" with Terminal Server,
> and then pay for your license for SBS for the second child partition.
>
> And, if you're going to set up a Terminal Server, there are huge
> advantages to going to Server 2k8 for it.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22881cdde2dda3879897aa@adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <EEBFE059-F484-4723-B636-34C5B6533CE6@microsoft.com>,
>> charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says...
>>> Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it has the
>>> disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run without a logon.
>>> Virtual
>>> Server doesn't have those limitations.
>>>
>>> Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The biggest
>>> problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM, maximum. That means
>>> that
>>> if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small amount
>>> on a
>>> TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a bit
>>> starved,
>>> one suspects.
>>>
>>> One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of Windows,
>>> which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition), and run both SBS
>>> and
>>> the Terminal Server as guest OSs.
>>
>> I was looking at licensing, with 2008 this is economical as you get
>> rights for 4 Virtual servers, with 2003 you have to pay for each
>> instance.
>>
>> I would also think that you would have to install the first OS to be the
>> VM manager, then SBS, then the Terminal Server OS, so that would be 3
>> installs on one box?
>>
>> --
>> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
>> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
>> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
>> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>



Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by kj

kj
Sun May 04 21:41:45 PDT 2008

SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
> and note, that 1+1 right is Server Core+Hyper-V only on the parent.
> (Charlie knows this but I don't think it's obvious from his statement)

I keep hearing this but never any citation of exactly the source of this
information.

What I do find both the in 2008 licensing guide and in the Windows Server
2008 EULA states that the Host (POSE) must be used *only* to control and
manage the guest (VOSE). *Nowehere* can I find any specification or
limitation that the host (POSE) version *must be* a Server Core
installation.

If you have an authoritative source of this, please provide the reference.
Not sure how that might superceed the EULA, but I'd be interested in seeing
it firsthand.

(2008 Licesning Guide)

A customer licensed with Windows Server 2008 Standard now may run

one instance of the server software in the physical operating system

environment (POSE) and one instance of the server software in a virtual
operating

system environment (VOSE). This is a new enhancement to

the virtualization rights of Windows Server Standard. Diagram A below

illustrates this new license enhancement. The orange arrow indicates that

when running both instances, the instance of the server software running

in the POSE may only be used to manage and service the operating system

environments on the server.



(2008 Eula)



b. Running Instances of the Server Software. You may run, at any one time,
one instance of the server software in one physical operating system
environment and one instance in one virtual operating system environment on
the licensed server.
If you run both permitted instances at the same time, the instance of the
server software running in the physical operating system environment may be
used only to:

· run hardware virtualization software

· provide hardware virtualization services

· run software to manage and service operating system environments on the
licensed server.


c. Running Instances of the Additional Software. You may run or otherwise
use any number of instances of additional software listed below in physical
or virtual operating system environments on any number of devices. You may
use additional software only with the server software directly, or
indirectly through other additional software.
· AD Migration Tool
· FRS Monitoring Tools
· Remote Desktop Connection Client
· RSAT Client


>
> You _may_ be able to install other 'core only' roles (Read Only DC,
> etc...) but I'm not actually sure this is covered by licensing either.
>
> Last time I looked Enterprise was more than four times the cost of
> Standard (in AU) so unless you have other E vs S requirements, no, it
> didn't cut it just on the virtual side of things.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
> message news:30CC8366-854D-4407-A6F8-11449486CC4D@microsoft.com...
>> Actually, you get rights to 4 VMs with Server 2k3 R2 as well. <g>
>> Just not with Server 2k3 pre-R2. But just as with Server 2k8, that's
>> Enterprise ONLY. (Datacenter is unlimited, I think.)
>>
>> Given the price difference between Standard and Enterprise, you may
>> not want to pop for enterprise to only host two VMs.
>>
>> Yes, you can do this with Server 2k8. There, with standard, you get
>> 1+1 rights. (The parent partition plus one child.) So, if you do
>> this in Standard 2008, you'd be covered if you ran the parent
>> partition as a mgmt partition only, child partition as your "plus 1"
>> with Terminal Server, and then pay for your license for SBS for the
>> second child partition. And, if you're going to set up a Terminal Server,
>> there are huge
>> advantages to going to Server 2k8 for it.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22881cdde2dda3879897aa@adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <EEBFE059-F484-4723-B636-34C5B6533CE6@microsoft.com>,
>>> charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says...
>>>> Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it
>>>> has the disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run without
>>>> a logon. Virtual
>>>> Server doesn't have those limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The
>>>> biggest problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM,
>>>> maximum. That means that
>>>> if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small
>>>> amount on a
>>>> TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a bit
>>>> starved,
>>>> one suspects.
>>>>
>>>> One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of
>>>> Windows, which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition),
>>>> and run both SBS and
>>>> the Terminal Server as guest OSs.
>>>
>>> I was looking at licensing, with 2008 this is economical as you get
>>> rights for 4 Virtual servers, with 2003 you have to pay for each
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> I would also think that you would have to install the first OS to
>>> be the VM manager, then SBS, then the Terminal Server OS, so that
>>> would be 3 installs on one box?
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
>>> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling
>>> a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

--
/kj



Re: Terminal Services - Virtual Server an Option? by kj

kj
Sun May 04 23:38:35 PDT 2008

SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
> OK, I can live with that. Does not have to be Core+H, but can only
> provide core services + Hyper-V (but including management of the
> children), no other roles (so my RO DC is out too).
>
> May as well be limited to Core+H :-)

Might be the easiest to safely comply with the licensing and probably the
most effecient for memory too.

>>run software to manage and service operating system environments
>> on the licensed server.

Maybe it's just me, but just what does "...service operating system
environments on the (host) licesned server" really mean? Are they talking
RDP or similar?

>
> "kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OUFlWpmrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
>>> and note, that 1+1 right is Server Core+Hyper-V only on the parent.
>>> (Charlie knows this but I don't think it's obvious from his
>>> statement)
>>
>> I keep hearing this but never any citation of exactly the source of
>> this information.
>>
>> What I do find both the in 2008 licensing guide and in the Windows
>> Server 2008 EULA states that the Host (POSE) must be used *only* to
>> control and manage the guest (VOSE). *Nowehere* can I find any
>> specification or limitation that the host (POSE) version *must be* a
>> Server Core installation.
>>
>> If you have an authoritative source of this, please provide the
>> reference. Not sure how that might superceed the EULA, but I'd be
>> interested in seeing it firsthand.
>>
>> (2008 Licesning Guide)
>>
>> A customer licensed with Windows Server 2008 Standard now may run
>>
>> one instance of the server software in the physical operating system
>>
>> environment (POSE) and one instance of the server software in a
>> virtual operating
>>
>> system environment (VOSE). This is a new enhancement to
>>
>> the virtualization rights of Windows Server Standard. Diagram A below
>>
>> illustrates this new license enhancement. The orange arrow indicates
>> that when running both instances, the instance of the server software
>> running in the POSE may only be used to manage and service the operating
>> system environments on the server.
>>
>>
>>
>> (2008 Eula)
>>
>>
>>
>> b. Running Instances of the Server Software. You may run, at any one
>> time, one instance of the server software in one physical operating
>> system environment and one instance in one virtual operating system
>> environment on the licensed server.
>> If you run both permitted instances at the same time, the instance
>> of the server software running in the physical operating system
>> environment may be used only to:
>>
>> · run hardware virtualization software
>>
>> · provide hardware virtualization services
>>
>> · run software to manage and service operating system environments
>> on the licensed server.
>>
>>
>> c. Running Instances of the Additional Software. You may run or
>> otherwise use any number of instances of additional software listed
>> below in physical or virtual operating system environments on any
>> number of devices. You may use additional software only with the
>> server software directly, or indirectly through other additional
>> software. · AD Migration Tool
>> · FRS Monitoring Tools
>> · Remote Desktop Connection Client
>> · RSAT Client
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You _may_ be able to install other 'core only' roles (Read Only DC,
>>> etc...) but I'm not actually sure this is covered by licensing
>>> either. Last time I looked Enterprise was more than four times the cost
>>> of
>>> Standard (in AU) so unless you have other E vs S requirements, no,
>>> it didn't cut it just on the virtual side of things.
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> message news:30CC8366-854D-4407-A6F8-11449486CC4D@microsoft.com...
>>>> Actually, you get rights to 4 VMs with Server 2k3 R2 as well. <g>
>>>> Just not with Server 2k3 pre-R2. But just as with Server 2k8,
>>>> that's Enterprise ONLY. (Datacenter is unlimited, I think.)
>>>>
>>>> Given the price difference between Standard and Enterprise, you may
>>>> not want to pop for enterprise to only host two VMs.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you can do this with Server 2k8. There, with standard, you get
>>>> 1+1 rights. (The parent partition plus one child.) So, if you do
>>>> this in Standard 2008, you'd be covered if you ran the parent
>>>> partition as a mgmt partition only, child partition as your "plus
>>>> 1" with Terminal Server, and then pay for your license for SBS for
>>>> the second child partition. And, if you're going to set up a
>>>> Terminal Server, there are huge
>>>> advantages to going to Server 2k8 for it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.22881cdde2dda3879897aa@adfree.usenet.com...
>>>>> In article <EEBFE059-F484-4723-B636-34C5B6533CE6@microsoft.com>,
>>>>> charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says...
>>>>>> Virtual PC is for desktops. Not recommended on a server, and it
>>>>>> has the disadvantage of not being able to autostart or run
>>>>>> without a logon. Virtual
>>>>>> Server doesn't have those limitations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you do it? Certainly. I have done it, as have others. The
>>>>>> biggest problem is that SBS is hard limited to 4 GB of RAM,
>>>>>> maximum. That means that
>>>>>> if you grab 2 GB of RAM for your Terminal Server (a pretty small
>>>>>> amount on a
>>>>>> TS), you've stolen 2 GB from your SBS which is going to feel a
>>>>>> bit starved,
>>>>>> one suspects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One alternative I've also done is to install an x64 version of
>>>>>> Windows, which can view 32-GB of RAM (in the Standard Edition),
>>>>>> and run both SBS and
>>>>>> the Terminal Server as guest OSs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking at licensing, with 2008 this is economical as you
>>>>> get rights for 4 Virtual servers, with 2003 you have to pay for
>>>>> each instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also think that you would have to install the first OS to
>>>>> be the VM manager, then SBS, then the Terminal Server OS, so that
>>>>> would be 3 installs on one box?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
>>>>> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like
>>>>> calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
>>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>>
>> --
>> /kj

--
/kj