Virtualising BizTalk - what are your options?
[[Edited April 2nd, 2009, as my initial understanding of the SVVP was incorrect]]
[[Edited September 15th, 2009 to update product list]]
There is a useful document out on the subject you may want to read through:
I won't be going through the contents of the guide here. Instead I'll highlight the gotchas on what versions are supported on the various virtualisationn products. Looking at this KB article:
Microsoft BizTalk Server supportability on a virtual machine
BizTalk 2004, 2006, 2006 R2, and 2009 are all fully supported on
- Microsoft Virtual Server 2005
- Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V
- Windows Hyper-V Server 2008
- Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) certified products
Anything else gets "Commercially reasonable support".
Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V and Windows Hyper-V Server 2008
This sounds like a content editing error but does actually describe two slightly different products:
- Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V
This refers to all 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2008 (on Intel VT or AMD-V technology) EXCEPT those versions of Windows that are specifically called "Windows Server 2008 <datacentre/enterprise/standard> without Hyper-V".
More details at "Overview of Editions" and "Virtualization with Hyper-V: FAQ" - Windows Hyper-V Server 2008
This is a stand-alone product that is available via the Microsoft Download Center free of charge. Although it requires 64-bit Windows Server 2008 and Intel VT or AMD-V technology, the download does not enable the same functionality as that provided through Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V.
More details at the Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 home page.
Pretty confusing to start with - maybe we could have called the download a Lite version?
Server Virtualization Validation Program
This is explained at:
Welcome to the Windows Server Virtualization Validation Program
The SVVP certified products are listed here and (as of 15/Sep/09) include:
- Cisco WAAS Virtual Blades 4.1
- Citrix XenServer 5 (including the Embedded Edition) and 5.5
- Hitachi Virtualization Manager Version 57 (a.k.a. Virtage)
- Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP2
- Stratus Avance Version 1.6
- VMware ESX 3.5 (updates 2-4)
- VMware ESXi 3.5 (updates 3-4)
- VMware vSphere ESX 4.0
- VMware vSphere ESXi 4.0
Note that when the site says these products are compatible with Windows Server 2008 (x86 and x64) as the Guest OS, the support for Windows 2003 sp2 and Windows 2000 sp4 is inferred. From the FAQ:
If a software company validates Windows Server 2008, are earlier versions of Windows Server supported?
When a vendor validates their virtualization solution with Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2000 SP4 and Windows Server 2003 SP2 and subsequent service packs are also supported.
Also note that Novell's product is only compatible with Windows Server 2008 x64 so I would expect that the 64-bit architecture limitation applies to earlier Guest OSes.
So, as long as you use one of the listed Microsoft or 3rd party virtualisation products, you should be OK to virtualise BizTalk Server 2004, 2006 and 2006 R2. Updated information for BizTalk Server 2009 should be out soon.
Comments
Anonymous
May 29, 2009
I just checked FAQ. It mentions Windows Server 2008 R2 and not Windows Server 2008. Does that mean that WIndows Server 2003 SP2 can only be inferred if ESX is validated with Windows Server 2008 R2 and not Windows Server 2008?Anonymous
May 29, 2009
Hi Sudhir, that's just an example of someone enthusiastically updating the documentation ready for R2 (which is still at the Release Candidate stage) without understanding the confusion it may cause. You'll notice from the same website that none of the virtualisation products have been certified on Windows Server 2008 R2. Basically validation includes all the previous versions listed. So: Windows Server 2008 "R1" infers Windows 2003 sp2 and Windows 2000 sp4. Windows Server 2008 R2 infers Windows Server 2008 "R1", Windows 2003 sp2 and Windows 2000 sp4. I have fed back to the FAQ owners that the current text may be causing confusion for customers and therefore needs correcting. Cheers John Breakwell (MSFT)