Windows Server 2008 R2 Thread, Server Core --> is it faster? in Technical; any one using server core?
have you noticed any performance benefits ? i have a VM on my laptop and ...
11th December 2011, 02:28 AM #1
Server Core --> is it faster?
any one using server core?
have you noticed any performance benefits ? i have a VM on my laptop and it seems lightning fast compared to the last "non-server core" server vm i was running on here,
debating switching the DC's and File Servers to server core, now we have 7 desktops RSAT removes the need for the GUI on server to some degree.
(not really interested in debating its user friendliness, it doesn't scare me)
11th December 2011, 07:33 AM #2
It should be faster as it has less stuff and dependancies. Be aware though that lots and lots of software simple will not work on it, even some command line only stuff as it ties into bits of the API that are part of the GUI layer. Bad architecture is the issue there but it has nasty effects. For instance some NIC drivers that have utilities for teaming (as an example) will not work as they and their config rely on bits at the GUI layer. I think that (at least in base 2k8) the IIS role needs the GUI thanks to the components it taps into.
The degraded interface may make it more comfortable to *nix users but for others that may consider it even if you did get stuck you can manage it remotely with the RSAT tools or another full server install. Just be aware of the programs and drivers that you need to run and make sure they can work under core.
11th December 2011, 11:53 AM #3
I agree, logically it should be faster, but it's also more secure too. There seems to be less security updates released for it.
11th December 2011, 11:59 AM #4
Indeed, less surface area for attacks so less vunrabilities and less need for patches.
Originally Posted by Michael
11th December 2011, 01:02 PM #5
That's the .net framework that wasn't support in R1 it is in R2 though now though. Seems crazy that it wasn't originally.
Originally Posted by SYNACK
I have had it running on a virtual machine for normal windows services and it's pretty good. I did a normal install of full and core side by side and the core was ready to go when the full was halfway through file copying. Core is certainly happy with a lot less memory as you can imagine so I hope that would equate to faster with more memory than full.
11th December 2011, 05:50 PM #6
My intent is to run our DCs and File Server off it next year - going to be pushing all of our VMs over onto a server core install as well.
As far as faster goes -it will at the very least use less RAM as there is no GUI to run, less need for downtime/pacthing on a DC/File Server should help a few things as well.
11th December 2011, 07:16 PM #7
RAM is a big concern for me, I'd like to get HA back, its okay the moment but we would have to cut a few VM's if we lost a host. they don't need SIMS do they
12th December 2011, 08:20 AM #8
It definitely uses less RAM, but unfortunately the promised 'fewer reboots' is in reality only a marginal difference as most of the patch Tuesdays in memory have included at least one vulnerability that affects Server Core and requires a reboot.
By theeldergeek in forum MIS Systems
Last Post: 11th January 2013, 10:13 AM
By Oops_my_bad in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 14th February 2008, 12:51 AM
By timbo343 in forum Windows
Last Post: 20th October 2007, 07:09 AM
Last Post: 8th June 2007, 01:42 PM
By ranj in forum Hardware
Last Post: 7th January 2007, 02:57 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)