Vincent Vancalbergh's questions

I seems the Xeon E5540 ticks all the "fun" boxes for Hyper-V (especially VT-d) on Windows Server 2012. The only one conspicuously missing is "Trusted Execution".

I read the information on Wikipedia and Intel's page. If I understand it correctly it enables the OS to mark data as non-executable and prevent attacks in various ways.

So I understand it's generally a good thing to have. Question then becomes: If I use this CPU (or another CPU w/o Trusted Execution) in my Hyper-V servers, how am I potentially shooting myself in the foot? What features will I NOT be able to use?

My targeted setup:

• SLAT enabled laptop w recent graphics card
• Win2012 Host OS w Hyper-V role
• DirectX 11 driver installed
• Win8 VM (OS is joined in my employer's domain)
• I RDP into the Win8 VM from the Host OS

I want to use RemoteFX to accelerate my VM-graphics. Unfortunately enabling RemoteFX requires installing Remote Desktop Services and thus an RDS License. Now, an RDS CAL isn't the end of the world, but an RDS 2012 License Server is "tricky" to set up without a domain.

I thought about the following:

• Configure my Win2012 Host OS as an AD domain controller making my own private little domain
• Configure my firewall so it doesn't answer to traffic from the outside.
• Install the RDS Role with
• Configure a RD License Server on it, add 1 "per user" CAL
• Add the GPU to my Win8 VM

Will this work given that my Win8 VM will be in a different "untrusted" domain? Question is mostly dependant on "who needs the license?", the Hyper-V Host OS with the RDS Role installed on it but never accepts an actual RDP connection or the Win8 VM that does?

EDIT:

Little realization:

Once you install the RDS Role and RDS Virtualization subrole, all connections to virtual machines are probably treated as if they were RDP connections to the host OS.

This is gross speculation on my part.. It's all a bit foggy IMO

I have a Windows 8 pro machine running Hyper-V. This is a laptop with a LAN and a Wifi connection. As a consultant, when I'm on the customer's network, internet access is often limited for the employees, but set open for my machine (largely because I'm assumed to know what I'm doing :).

My issue:

I am often making and killing virtual machines in the course of the time I am there and these machines are restricted in Internet Access. These are usually brand new installs or copies from a clean template. If I'd ask them to get access it wouldn't be an issue (as I said, they trust me), but it's a hassle I'd like to avoid.

My solution:

1. Define two External virtual switches, one for my LAN and one for my Wifi.
2. Define an internal virtual switch
3. Set up a Win2008R2 RRAS VM.
4. Connect the three virtual switches to the RRAS.
5. Set up the RRAS to team the LAN and Wifi, set up NAT and provide the Internal network with Internet/network no matter which adapter is connected.
6. Connect all other virtual machines AND the Windows 8 host-OS to the Internal network.

My question:

A) Is the RRAS thing (step 5) feasible?

B) Can I deny my host OS direct access to my LAN and Wifi connection? I'm fine with seeing the adapters, but I want all traffic redirected over the Internal network.

If need be I can:

• Make the RRAS server Win 2012
• Make my Host OS Win 2012

(which would both involve badgering our IT-guy for the product key :p)

EDIT:

Win2012 supports teaming network adapters, so if I change my host OS to Win2012 I MIGHT be able to team the LAN and Wifi there and "share" it's connection with the internal network. That'd require reinstalling my system, so It's a last ditch solution.

I know that SAS drives cannot operate on a SATA controller. I know that SATA drives can operate on a SAS controller.

But can Near-Line SAS drives, being SATA drives with a SAS controller, be used on
A) only SAS controllers
B) both SATA and SAS controllers
?

Note that the nearline SAS drives feature "dual port", but I'm unsure if this means "has a SATA and a SAS port" or "has 2 SAS ports". Especially since I seem to read that the connnectors and cables themselves seem to be interchangeable, which, if they are, would make the dual port conundrum moot.