• 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.

question about HYPER-V and server 2008 r2 core install

T

troyquigley

Guest
it is possible to install the "server 2008 r2 core" on a single sata hdd
and place the hyper-v virtual servers on the raid drives.

that way i can ghost the server 2008 r2 core install
and of course takes snapshots of the virtual servers.

makes getting everything back up and running much faster.

or
do i need to have the server 2008 r2 core install on the same drive as hyper-v and the virtual servers ?
 
I don't know about server core... but on all the other Hyper-V related installs I've done I always kept my virtual machines on other drives
 
Any downside from seperating the host OS from the virtual servers?
 
There might be one... but I can't honestly think of one.

each HDD can only put out so many IOPs, the more things you have use a HDD the lower the performance.

Also the more you have on 1 HDD the more you lose if that HDD goes down.


Put the VMs on the raid, you'll be happier.
 
when going with my above approach.
will my host OS (server 2008 r2 core install) being mostly idle (hdd not being used)

and all the work will be done on my raid controllers via the virtual servers ?

or in this scenario, does the host os need alot of speed via scsi array ?
 
I would not say that your drive will be mostly idle, however in this situation, the OS drive would not need tons of speed. The amount of RAM the system is utilizing will also be a factor.

This setup is more ideal. It is how I have my lab setup, however I chose the normal GUI version as opposed to the core install. I am using all SATA drives: the OS on a single drive, and the VMs on a RAID 10.
 
dont the vm's lose performance having the host OS with the full GUI ?

i was only looking at doing the core install to make sure my VM's were fast as possible.

BTW - i am planning on 32gb for my physical server.
 
The GUI install will use more CPU and RAM over the core install (at idle), however I think it would be minimal. It will also take up more HDD space, but that should be obvious. I guess it depends on what the specs of the machine are, and how many VMs as well as what their roles are.

I run Active Directory and Hyper-v roles on the host OS, so that when my VMs boot up I know the AD server is up and running. It is important for my lab environment that my servers and client have access to AD without and hiccups during my testing.
 
Do a core install you have nothing to lose except a little more time figuring things out. You do not need to know many commands other than how to install drivers (pnputil) and you might not even need that if it has drivers for all your stuff built in.

Its more secure, faster, and less disk space.
 
If this is a production environment, I would recommend you Mirror the OS and yes, it's best practice to keep the VM's on Seprate Volumes. We keep ours on our iSCSI San.
 
Not to change topics, but would this config be enough for a Hyper V server?

8gb ddr2 1000
Phenom2 x4 @ 3.75ghz
1hdd for server
1HDD for 2 OS's (up to 4 total, so 2 drives), probably won't run more than 2 OSs at a time, since I am ram limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top