locked
Looking for tips on renaming a MOSS SP 2007 server RRS feed

  • Question

  • Background:

    We currently have a 1 wfe, 1 SQL Server farm.

    The wfe is a hardware server.

    We want to evaluate performance of replacing this server with a virtual machine.

    The current wfe has 2 names - for example, srv45 is the _hardware_ server, and the users were told to use a name like "sp2007". Unfortunately, people have, against recommendations, sometimes used links to http://srv45/ interchangably with http://sp2007/ .

    Now, we want to evaluate performance of a VM to determine whether the environment is robust enough to provide as good as - or better - performance.

    The idea is for us to do this:

    1. take down srv45
    2. rename the hardware to srv45hw
    3. put the srv45 and the sp2007 names into the load balancer, redirecting them back to srv45hw, and sending all traffic to srv45hw.
    4. create srv45vm, installing the same version of SP2007, and pointing it at the same content database
    5. configure the F5 to redirect a small percentage of the traffic to srv45vm.
    6. monitor the performance, and grow the percentage of the traffic
    7. assuming no issues are seen, continue until 100% of the traffic is running on the vm

    The question I have is about step 2.  I have seen http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc261986(v=office.12).aspx which discusses renaming the server.  Since the old name is still going to be around, being redirected to the new hardware machine, does this seem like a reasonable approach to this type of evaluation?

    Are there any other things that need to be considered?

    Thank you so much for your help.

    Monday, August 27, 2012 4:17 PM

All replies

  • The name of the server is not really a concern.  Yes, you can rename it by following the instructions you provided, but why bother? The server is to be eventually decommissioned and you can always route traffic for http://srv45 to wherever you want (a black hole preferably since you don't actually want users using this name).

    No matter what you do, I recommend doing a performance baseline so you are better prepared to make comparisons between the physical and virtual environments. Check out this blog post for suitable SharePoint 2007-related performance counters.

    If it was me, I would create a new VM and join that to your existing farm. While both are running I would load balance with the F5 and gradually (over a few days or weeks, depending on your availability) move services over to the new server. While all this is happening you have performance logs running on both servers (and SQL too if you'd like) to see the impact of all changes. If the VM can't handle another service, increase the applicable resource (if possible).

    This way you're not committing to anything (you can move the services back if your virtual infrastructure can't handle it) plus you don't have to go through the lovely headache of renaming servers.


    Jason Warren
    Infrastructure Architect



    • Edited by Jason Warren Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:26 AM typo
    Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:25 AM
  • The name of the server is a concern because there are links and applications which make reference to the sharepoint site by server name as we as by farm name. To insert the load balancer and ensure that we are getting a balance of traffic against the VM that we want to evaluate, we want to be certain that the majority of traffic is represented.

    Users do not generally use IP addresses in their URLs here. So if we can move both the farm and the server name to the load balancer, we will have most if not all of the traffic covered.

    Thank you so much for the performance counters blog post.

    Your description is very similar to what we are envisioning doing.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:00 PM