Server 2008 R2 w/hyper-v role vs Hyper-V Server 2008 R2

H

HalfJawElite

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
111
Hey guys,

Just a quick discussion topic. I currently have a small lab setup at home and have Server 2008 R2 Datacenter installed on a 500 gig hdd with hyper-v role setup on it. I was wondering what the pro's and con's would be to switch over to Hyper-v Server on an ssd? I have a file server setup in a vm on it and am using it as a massive nas for my family but I also plan on virtualizing other os's for remote access, website, email and maybe game server hosting. I have tried using the Hyper-V Server on usb stick but that wasn't working out as well as my esxi on usb.

My Datacenter edition is running in full GUI mode instead of server core so I know the install partition will be much smaller, the question is how small? I have a gaming desktop that has a series of Corsair Force GT 120 gig ssd's in it and I am loving the performance from them, so would a single 60 gig version suffice for Hyper-V Server? The vm's will be placed on the existing 500 gig hdd after I get Hyper-V up and running so I don't have to worry about storing them in the C drive. I just need to know how to setup the default folder in for Hyper-V in server core mode using remote Hyper-V manager.

Any suggestions or comments to the Hyper-V on ssd idea?
 
I'm running the full Server 2012 with hyperV role on a 30GB SSD, so you shouldn't have an issue. Windows did complain that it didn't have enough space for a memory dump if there was a crash, but it's been working great for half the year so far.
 
One big difference is that Server 2008 R2 with the Hyper-V role requires a license, Hyper-V 2008 R2 does not.

Running Hyper-V itself on a SSD won't do you much good. Just use rotational disks for that and use SSDs for VMs. But if you must use a SSD, 60GB will be more than enough.
 
Definitely use a SSD for the VMs. One SSD can run 4 or 5 VMs with little performance hit. (Regular HDD is slow with even 2 VMs on it)
 
Last edited:
Ok thats some pretty sound advice. The way I have it now is that windows is on a single 500 gig hdd and my vm's are stored on a 1 Tb hdd, with some additional hdd's used for vm storage (passthrough disks for file server). Everything is working great right now but I can notice a slight lag in the vm's preformance when remoting in and preformaning operations within it.
 
Biznatch said:
I'm running the full Server 2012 with hyperV role on a 30GB SSD, so you shouldn't have an issue. Windows did complain that it didn't have enough space for a memory dump if there was a crash, but it's been working great for half the year so far.
Click to expand...

What's your server specs and the type of load you currently have running on it?
 
Child of Wonder said:
One big difference is that Server 2008 R2 with the Hyper-V role requires a license, Hyper-V 2008 R2 does not.

Running Hyper-V itself on a SSD won't do you much good. Just use rotational disks for that and use SSDs for VMs. But if you must use a SSD, 60GB will be more than enough.
Click to expand...

I know about the differences between the Windows server and Hyper-V server. I was wondering about just using hyper-v because on the physical machine I don't need more than the hypervisor. I never thought to run the os on the hdd and the vm's on ssd's. Though using just hyper-v on the hard drive seems overkill with all the extra unused space on it after install, don't you think?
 
HalfJawElite said:
What's your server specs and the type of load you currently have running on it?
Click to expand...

Opteron 6234
Supermicro board
32GB ECC/Reg
2-30GB SSD Raid1 - Host OS
3-120GB Samsung 830 - VMs
Lots of HDD for storage/DBs
Norco 4020 Case

Running Exchange 2010, Forefront TMG, SQL 2012/2008, Server 2012 file server, W7, Ubuntu, DPM 2012, SCOM 2012, Sharepoint 2010
 
Other differences include....

No gui to manage.....less easily hacked.
Less patches, fewer reboots.
Less overhead.
More difficult to setup.
Sometime more difficult to manage.


Since Hyper-V server is free, you have no reason to use the 2008 version.

Use Hyper-V Server 2012. You'll gain features and performance and lose nothing.

I use this in addition to ease local management: http://vtutilities.com/
 
I already have the Windows 7 RSAT utilities installed on my Pro x64 OS. If I follow what you guys are saying then I'll look into going the ssd route for the vm's and OS.

As it stands now this is what I've got:
ASUS P9X79 WS
64 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz Corsair XMS3
1 DVD (drive for installs)
2 Seagate 1 TB 7200 Sata 2 hdd's (passthrough storage for vm's)
2 WD Black 500 GB hdd's (one OS one vm location)

And this is what I'm thinking of going to now:
ASUS P9X79 WS
64 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz Corsair XMS3
1 DVD (drive for installs)
2 Seagate 1 TB 7200 Sata 2 hdd's (passthrough storage for vm's)
2 WD Black 500 GB hdd's (vm snapshot and other storage)
1 Corsair Force Series 3 GT 60 GB (OS server core install)
2 Corsair Force Series 3 GT 180 or 240 GB (for vm's)

Any comments?
 
I also found this guide for setting up access for remote management of Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 in core install mode:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/virtual_pc_...agement-of-hyper-v-server-in-a-workgroup.aspx
and this one for Server 2012:
http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/HVRemote
Can anyone verify if it really is this easy with RSAT installed? I haven't really used it on mine now because I have the full gui installed and haven't needed the remote access yet. I will later on in the near future though!
 
Mackintire said:
Other differences include....

No gui to manage.....less easily hacked.
Less patches, fewer reboots.
Less overhead.
More difficult to setup.
Sometime more difficult to manage.


Since Hyper-V server is free, you have no reason to use the 2008 version.

Use Hyper-V Server 2012. You'll gain features and performance and lose nothing.

I use this in addition to ease local management: http://vtutilities.com/
Click to expand...

I've been trying to setup remote management via the server manager included in the RSAT package for Windows and have been encountering this error:

Connecting to remote server failed with the following error message: The WinRM client cannot process the request. If the authentication scheme is different from kerberos, or the client computer is not joined to a domain, then HTTPS transport must be used or the destination machine must be added to the TrustedHosts configuration setting.

What am I missing here to fix this issue? I have followed this article http://blogs.msdn.com/b/virtual_pc_...agement-of-hyper-v-server-in-a-workgroup.aspx But have so far been unsuccessful in getting it to work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top