Running services and encoding on WHS2011

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
is it generally accepted as "proper" to run third-party services directly on a WHS2011 install? my current WHSv1 server is currently running Playon (transcoding web video sources on demand via DLNA), OpenVPN service, and Subsonic music streamer (also capable of transcoding on the fly based on the client).

My original concept with my upcoming build was to utilize a Xeon X3440 with hyper-v server installed and use WHS2011 as one guest (2 physical cores allocated, 8GB RAM allocated) and another Win7Pro guest (2 physcial cores allocated, 8GB RAM allocated). I would leave WHS2011 clean, pristine, and stock. The win7Pro Vm would host these services as well as do handbrake x264 encoding (and sometimes I use ripbot for camcorder footage).

I read something the other day on an old STH post that actually mentioned using WHS's idle cycle for handbrake runs.

so, what is the general opinion out there in the world (at least in the world of STH forums)? is it best to keep a WHS install stock, or is adding these additional services not hurting anything?

the driver for this is knowing that if i can let x264 encode with 4 cores / 8 threads, that'll make me very happy :)

any considerations I need to make with the disk arrangements? (i havent quite nailed down what I'm doing yet, but raid 5/6 is probably outside of my budget for the first phase of the build)

Thanks for all the advice!

Jeremy
 

nitrobass24

Moderator
Dec 26, 2010
1,087
131
63
TX
Well if you are going to spend the time to do virtualization than would separate out the tasks. And have different VMs for different tasks.
1. Untouched WHS
2. Other services (VPN, subsonic, DLNA)

Some side comments:
Since you are now jumping into virtualization you have the opportunity to change the way some things work (ie. the VPN - I would probably setup a pfsense, astaro, or untangle VM and use that for not only VPN, but utilize the rest of the UTM features to increase network security).
Also you do not want to run encoding task within a VM, all you are doing is adding CPU overhead and will be extremely disk bound during muxing tasks.
For the most efficient encoding you should run on the hosts and have two separate disks/raidsets (ie. one HDD with source content, and one HDD where the output is being written (network shares are not advised). This way when you are doing an encode you dont have disk contention because your access will be sequential.
 

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
very good points. I already have my current WHSv1 hardware slated to be down-cycled to an untangle installation. I guess I forgot that the openvpn service would be run on that platform. but very good that you mentioned that. I'm a little unsure whether running untangle in a VM is a good idea. what are the potential caveats there apart from the obvious need for dedicated NICs? I guess if the host is down for some reason, the router being down is a very good indicator. I like the advantages in saved electricity vs another set of hardware. any other pros/cons?

You logic for not encoding in VMs make sense. my current desktop (where i do encodes now) has separate source/destination disks. going forward then, it may make sense to drop virtualization, use the quad xeon for WHS2011 and encode on that (with playon and subsonic as well). which i guess gets back to the OP, is there intrinsic value in a clean WHS?

i'm going to go do some research on untangle and the like in VMs and how hyper-v allocates cores. i'm assuming that with a single quad core proc, the most VMs you can have is 4. unless the hypervisor some how allow core to be shared across VMs.
 

nitrobass24

Moderator
Dec 26, 2010
1,087
131
63
TX
While running a router/UTM appliance in a VM environment is not a recommended practice due to security reasons, I dont see a problem with it for a home environment. A UTM appliance in a VM is still going to be better than just a NAT router behind your modem.

Hyper-v does not allocate cores to VMs. Theoretically you can have an unlimited # of VMs regardless of the cores/threads your Host CPU has.

As far as intrinsic value to keeping a clean WHS. Personally the more you can keep separated the higher availability you can potentially have and you eliminate the possibility for conflicts.
I used to have my WHS run everything in my house. (WHS host w/ torrents, usenet, SQL server, plus VMWare workstation (with all kinds of VMs). One point my network performance went to shit on my WHS and i couldnt figure out why. Because my WHS setup was so complicated i had no idea where the real problem was and it was a nightmare to fix. I ended up installing Server 08 and going with Hyper-v to segregate everything. No when there is a problem is relatively easy to identify.
 

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
so now I'm stuck in the planning phase. i guess i'm realizing that my purpose for beefing up the hardware of this build was to both run the future release of WHS2011 and to offload the encoding from the desktop to a) something with more horsepower and b) hardware that I don't use regularly for non-encoding task (work, gaming, etc...)

at the point that encoding in a VM doesnt make sense (which i agree that the CPU limitations of managing the virtual cores presents inefficiencies), i have not much reason to virtualize (apart from maybe the edge device, untangle, pfsense, etc).

i can accomplish all of the goals in the first paragraph of this post by running WHS2011 directly on the xeon and sacrificing the advantages of responsibility separation (which as a programmer i understand very well) by encoding on it and running the streaming services as well.

or suck it up and encode on my desktop or buy two sets of hardware (one storage focused, less horsepower for WHS and another the is tailored for encoding).

ugh. decisions, decisions. I still too need to decide how to do disks in WHS2011 with the demise of DE. I haven't decided if a couple of raid1 arrays makes sense. or complicate with raid 10. or just go straight raw disks and use WHS's new server backup feature to backup each disk every 30 minutes (more or less software raid 1 with a 30 delay on the mirroring). i've come into this planning phase wanting to go all out with virtualization and a raid 6 array across 6Gbs drives enough for an SAS expander. in the last week of planning, "the vision" has been dumbed down mostly due to budget, but also the viability of "the vision" (like encoding in VM).

being a nerd is hard work :)
 

nitrobass24

Moderator
Dec 26, 2010
1,087
131
63
TX
Why do you need two sets of hardware?

Just get one powerful machine to run hyper-v (WHS vm) and do the encoding on the desktop of the Host?
 

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
i was planning on using the free Hyper-V Server 2008, my understanding was that it was an "OS" in and of itself with no GUI. a license for windows server 2008 to use as the host is definitely not in the budget. i'd be very happy if i was wrong about that and hyper-v server could be run from a win7pro host.

are you familiar with ESXi too? does that have a linux-based host that could be used to run handbrake? or is that bare-minimum hypervisor layer as well?
 

Patrick

Administrator
Staff member
Dec 21, 2010
12,511
5,792
113
So just to chime in a bit here (nitrobass24 is right on), if your purpose is to offload encoding to maintain workstation performance, even if it is a bit slower, you still achieve the goal. Also, Handbrake's utilization of HT cores is really bad. That is why, despite being multi-threaded, the i5-2500K and i7-2600K perform basically the same.

If you are fine with CLI, Ubuntu is actually OK in Hyper-V so long as you do not need the GUI.
 

nitrobass24

Moderator
Dec 26, 2010
1,087
131
63
TX
OK I didnt realize you were going to use the free version of hyper-v. hmmm....let me fester on this during my flight.

ESX is *nix like, but is not linux. And should not be treated as such.
If it was truly linux, you could use linux drivers, but unfortunately we cant.
 

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
yeah, i know the free hyper-v is a wrench. i have a better understanding of what you were saying that we are on the same page. i blame microsoft, because the name Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 is too similar to Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V. i myself was confused a couple days ago when i thought i had to buy a server 2008 license (that was in another thread). what would a proper server 2008 license cost me? i think i'd need some CALs too for each device that connects to it....

maybe what i do is use my existing hardware for the new WHS (i'd get a new HBA since the motherboard's controller failed last week, which was the catalyst for this build). use my budget to build an encoding rig (as well as the services, playon, subsonic, etc). then source some cheap usable hardware for the UTM device. my only problem going this way is that there is no "cool factor" and certainly no geek cred.

i'm eager to hear what you think up although certainly don't waste too many brain cycles on my problem. you've been a great help so far, i just never want to become a burden around
 
Last edited:

nitrobass24

Moderator
Dec 26, 2010
1,087
131
63
TX
I dont think that running two boxes is a good solution unless you just want to. From a cost perspective it would be more cost effective, to run a single box and buy a license for VMware Workstation or even use VMware Server (free) and run that on top of the Host OS. Although neither of those technologies bode themselves well for a WHS (or any guest that needs direct disk access).

Im not certain on Hyper-v Server (free) but it might be like server08 Core and still give you CMD line access? If so you could prob still run x264 on the host and just use handbrake in a VM to generate the cmd line statement (if you are not comfortable doing it manually). Probably wont work, but i have no idea cause i havent used the free version of Hyper-V.

Server 2008 is expensive, but there are cheaper ways to get it. Are you a student/teacher, do you own your own business? Or you could buy Technet.
 

jbraband

Member
Feb 23, 2011
44
0
6
i think windows server 2008 r2 standard would run me $659 through newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6&cm_re=server_2008_r2-_-32-116-806-_-Product

(learned from my thread in the hyper-v forum) if i use it as just a virtualization host, i dont need a CAL. if i were to use it for other things such as encoding, i'd need a CAL for just me (i think since i'm the only user using non-virtualization things on the host)

the server licensing and CAL model is horrible for home use. plus it blow through more than 1/4 of my soft budget.

i read through the technet subscription license and it doesnt seem that my usage would qualify under that since i'm not installing to test and there's no persistent use rights after the subscription expires

the msdn subscription is perfect, but still not technically for production environments plus its $700, but does include persistent use rights. i assume i'd just stock up on enough keys for everything i'd need during the subscription. again though, not sure how "by the book" that is.

not a student or teacher. i do freelance work as a side job. but i don't have an LLC or any other type of legal entity for the business. i file 1099-MISC forms to IRS

if i do virtualization, i'd want to go the full hypervisor route, i.e. not install win7pro with VMWare server installed to run the VMs. on my current WHS i'm running an ubuntu VM in VMWare server and stability didnt come as a feature with that setup ;)

i'm not closing the book on virtualization yet, but putting up with the possibility of hard to troubleshoot problems on a non-virtual WHS install used as WHS, encoder, DLNA, etc.... seems to be my best option. it gives me off-desktop encoding on powerful hardware and a single box of hardware (barring the untangle device which doesnt seem to run well in hyper-v anyway based on googling).

no final decisions yet, if you think of something, i'm all ears.
 

AussieMatt

New Member
Aug 14, 2011
2
0
0
To VM or not to VM, WHS2011 only

I am stuck with similar decision to you, but I have no experience with VM's, I want to VM my WHS2011 so I can move it to new hardware whenever I feel, and maybe run another gaming server on the same hardware (with the use of ESXi 4.1).

Currently I have an i5 2500k unboxed and installed into an Asrock Z68 Professional Fatal1ty MB, and a i5 2500 ready to install if I decide to move to virtualise my WHS2011.

But I will take the i5 2500 back if Encoding is significantly worse with it running Virtualised, and keep it standard. But if it’s not significantly worse for our needs (single VM under ESXi or possible Max of TWO VMs under ESXi) than I will sell the i5 2500k on eBay and open the new box…

Anyone can direct me into how much worse the encoding is on the 2500 vs the 2500k and also how much worse it is in WHS2011 running as a VM under ESXi4.1 compared to having WHS2011 standard?
Also does ESXi4.1 support USB3.0 in my MB?

Cheers for your help, I am trying to get this done ASAP (home serve taking too long, wife =not happy), hopefully your replies can help others too.
 

Patrick

Administrator
Staff member
Dec 21, 2010
12,511
5,792
113
The i5-2500K is only better because it has an unlocked multiplier which you can use to overclock on the Z68 board. The i5-2500 supports VT-d making it slightly more useful in ESXi (if you want to pass-through a controller.) You might be able to use VT-d to pass through the USB 3.0 controller to a VM. Not sure if your board will support VT-d though.

I have never heard of anyone getting Quick Sync to work properly under ESXi. Quick Sync makes encoding very fast assuming you use one of the limited number of programs that utilize it. If going WHS 2011 standard allowed you to use Quick Sync, and you had a QS enabled program, that would be a huge speed boost and it would support USB 3.0. For built-in Silverlight-based encoding/ streaming in WHS 2011 I don't think you have Quick Sync support so that is not helpful there.

If you wanted to go faster, you might look at an i7.

Personally I would go a standard WHS 2011 install then use something like virtualbox if you wanted to run another VM. For what it sounds like you are trying to do that may be a best bet.
 

AussieMatt

New Member
Aug 14, 2011
2
0
0
Cheers Gonna have a try today

Yes its Christmas Eve but Wife is overseas so going to do something semi-constructive and go with your patricks suggestion.

NOTE: I did move the i5K to my new workstation and put in a standard i5 for the server.... there is ESXi5 now which should support all my needs, but I feel life to be too complicated to worry about computer stuff now, and I don't want to re setup my WHS2011 after it is only just working well today (I don't get much time to work on this stuff).

Cheers