Windows Server 2008 R2 Thread, Hyper-V differences in Technical; Can anyone tell me the difference in installing Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (which is a free download) straight onto ...
4th July 2011, 03:51 PM #1
Can anyone tell me the difference in installing Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (which is a free download) straight onto the server and then adding VMs to it as compared with Installing Microsoft Server 2008 R2 Core with Hyper-V role and adding VMs to that??
I looking to build a new server to host VMs for Ubuntu, Server 2003 and Server 2008 R2. I have purchased Server 2008 R2 Enterprise but now not sure which is best way to go forward?
4th July 2011, 03:54 PM #2
The only real differance is that Hyper-V server dosn't include virtulisation rights and 'normal' server 2008 does with Standard getting you the rights to run 1 VM, Enterprise giving you the rights to run 4 VMs and Datacentre the rights to run unlimited.
In that way if you are looking at deploying new servers on top of the ones you are making VMs out of then you should look at getting the required Server 2008 R2 cals, however if you are just VMing existing servers then you can run that off of Hyper-V server with no worries.
Some people will use Hyper-V server (or use Sevrer Core) and buy the CALs anyway (if they are deploying new servers) as Hyper-V server requires less overall system resources to run as it dosn't have a GUI.
4th July 2011, 04:02 PM #3
I have Enterprise as I want to create 4 Virtual Servers (3 Microsoft and 1 Ubuntu). If I install Hyper-V R2 will that give me any benefits over Installing Server Core and then adding Hyper-V role?
If I didnt have Enterprise I would need to purchase licences for the Microsoft VMs, there isnt any other difference?
4th July 2011, 06:14 PM #4
basically the free download is server 2008 core so has no gui and uses less ram/cpu etc. It is also a bit of a pig to setup (i managed it once) as it all needs to be done via command line on that pc until a certain point then you need a win vista+ pc for the manglement console to make it do anything. Personally id rather waste the ram and have an install that has a usable console rather than a cmd line only interface but thats just my opinion
4th July 2011, 09:38 PM #5
Even more confused now!! So is the free Hyper-V 2008 R2 no more than Server Core install with Hyper-V role already built in? Bit like an Ubuntu Appliance?
Originally Posted by sted
I think I will have to use my Enterprise disk to install Server Core and then add Hyper-v so as to make use of the 4 licences included.
4th July 2011, 10:33 PM #6
Have you looked if Ubuntu has a HyperV compatible kernel/drivers? I managed it alright for debian but it certainly wasn't as easy as with citrix xen.
4th July 2011, 10:37 PM #7
If you know linux/ubuntu well look at using KVM outperforms hyper-v and esxi IMHO (my tests anyway)
Plus has easy support for pretty much any os thats out there and tends to just work
Main Page - KVM
5th July 2011, 10:13 AM #8
basically yes hyper v server is a free single purpose version of server 08r2 its just 08r2 core with one role enabled by default(and i dont think any more roles can be added)
Originally Posted by fiza
as far as im aware it has 0 imopact on your licensing if enterprise allows 3vm and one physical you can run 3vms on a hyperv server the physical is just not used
5th July 2011, 11:23 AM #9
Have a look at the link below. I havent tried it yet but will be following it soon ;
Originally Posted by j17sparky
Narendra Patel's Blog » Installing Ubuntu Server 11.04 64bit on Hyper-V
By ranj in forum Office Software
Last Post: 20th December 2011, 10:04 AM
By gshaw in forum Windows Server 2008
Last Post: 30th September 2010, 09:43 AM
By dgsmith in forum Educational Software
Last Post: 10th March 2009, 02:34 AM
By Ste_Harve in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 17th July 2008, 01:07 PM
By contink in forum Windows
Last Post: 13th July 2008, 09:43 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)