• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Best Solution(Hyper-V or VMware Server)

M

Mabrito

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
7,004
On my current server it has the following specs:
2 AMD Opteron's socket F (cant remember the model#, possibly 2212's)
8 gigs of ram
500 gig hard drive

My plan is to have a base installation of Server 2008 and then either install VMware Server 2 or the Hyper-V role. On the main install (non-vm) I plan on using it for a AD domain. On the VM's I plan on having one VM host my Exchange Server and one VM host IIS and SQL Server 2008.

Would Hyper-V be better for this task, or should I use the free version of VMware Server 2?
 
I can't say much about the VMware Server 2 because I went ESXi when I was testing between hyper-v and VMware. But when I tested Hyper-V it seemed a little too early of a product to trust on a production environment. There are papers on Microsoft.com about this (they don't recommend it for production use either). FYI, Hyper-V doesn't like all flavors of *NIX only SUSE (just in case).

Do you have the ability to test out the two products and see which one you like better?
 
Cyberrad said:
I can't say much about the VMware Server 2 because I went ESXi when I was testing between hyper-v and VMware. But when I tested Hyper-V it seemed a little too early of a product to trust on a production environment. There are papers on Microsoft.com about this (they don't recommend it for production use either). FYI, Hyper-V doesn't like all flavors of *NIX only SUSE (just in case).

Do you have the ability to test out the two products and see which one you like better?
Click to expand...

you can run the base 2k8 os, and make a VMWare server VM, and Hyper-V VM inside of VMWare workstation 6.5, whih is free for 60days...if you're really on the fence.
 
Cyberrad said:
There are papers on Microsoft.com about this (they don't recommend it for production use either).
Click to expand...
I'm not doubting they exist, but could you provide a link or more context? I'm currently looking to possibly implement Hyper-V in a production environment, so such warnings would be important to me.

I wonder if these warnings were in documents that predate the official release of Hyper-V while it was being used in its pre-release form over last year or so.

Here's the official MS Planning and Deployment guide for Hyper-V, for what it's worth.
 
Hurin said:
I'm not doubting they exist, but could you provide a link or more context? I'm currently looking to possibly implement Hyper-V in a production environment, so such warnings would be important to me.

I wonder if these warnings were in documents that predate the official release of Hyper-V while it was being used in its pre-release form over last year or so.

Here's the official MS Planning and Deployment guide for Hyper-V, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Interesting, they were in my face the whole time I was searching on which technology to go with but I can't seem to find them anymore. They might have pre-dated the official release and someone finally cleaned them up. I'll keep searching so I don't sound like an anti-Microsoft guy (I hold a few MCPs).

My advice is to actually try each one out before making your final decision. I did and I didn't care for hyper-v but some people I work with love it.
 
If Hyper-V wasn't ready for production (according to Microsoft) then it would still be considered Beta.

Your best bet is to give both a try. Theoretically Hyper-V should provide better performance because of Enlightened I/O.

I'm running Hyper-V at home and it seems to be going fairly smooth; I had a few minor issues but most are probably because it was designed with the assumption that you'd use it in Active Directory (which I'm not).

Of course, being a Microsoft product means that Hyper-V doesn't officially support many *nix distros. However, if you're just running Windows guests then it might be a good solution for you.
 
Cyberrad said:
There are papers on Microsoft.com about this (they don't recommend it for production use either).

FYI, Hyper-V doesn't like all flavors of *NIX only SUSE (just in case).
Click to expand...

The first is pure FUD. Consider for a second that Microsoft Azure is ran on Hyper-V. All across the IT industry Hyper-V is being used in production deployments.

Hyper-V doesn't "like" or "dislike" flavors of *NIX, it's purely a question of what driver interfaces a distro uses, and whether the linux helper drivers work. Certain distros got official sanctioning, although MANY others work just fine.

Between ESX, Hyper-V and Xen, there are advantages and disadvantages in perf, flexibility, cost etc. Each is optimized for different workloads and deployment scenarios. Are you compute-heavy? I/O? I would guess you will be I/O bound given you're hosting SQL and Exchange... in which case perf is probably a wash with your hardware.

-J
 
FWIW, I was able to install Centos and Debian on Hyper-V without any problems.

OP, running your entire setup on a single 500GB HDD is asking for performance disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top