+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
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 ...
  1. #1
    oxide54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    798
    Thank Post
    51
    Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts
    Rep Power
    22

    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)

  2. #2

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,084
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,679 Times in 2,272 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    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.

  3. #3

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    I agree, logically it should be faster, but it's also more secure too. There seems to be less security updates released for it.

  4. #4

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,084
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,679 Times in 2,272 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I agree, logically it should be faster, but it's also more secure too. There seems to be less security updates released for it.
    Indeed, less surface area for attacks so less vunrabilities and less need for patches.

  5. #5
    ChrisH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Lancs
    Posts
    4,999
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 280 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    I think that (at least in base 2k8) the IIS role needs the GUI thanks to the components it taps into.
    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.
    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.

  6. #6
    jamesfed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    2,194
    Thank Post
    134
    Thanked 340 Times in 287 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    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.

  7. #7
    oxide54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    798
    Thank Post
    51
    Thanked 55 Times in 54 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    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

  8. #8

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    394
    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.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. [SIMS] Document Server not running - but it is?
    By theeldergeek in forum MIS Systems
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11th January 2013, 10:13 AM
  2. Is it worth waiting until server 2008?
    By Oops_my_bad in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14th February 2008, 12:51 AM
  3. is it possible to rename an exchange server
    By timbo343 in forum Windows
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20th October 2007, 07:09 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8th June 2007, 01:42 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th January 2007, 02:57 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •