mrbios Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I come from a background of using vmware, and all my host servers have no physical disks, instead they run the vmware ESXi off internal pen or sd flash storage, so i've got a few questions as to how this works with hyper-v.... Can the same thing be done with hyper-v? or am i better off using disks for that? How big is the footprint for the host OS with hyper-v? Does it grow in size in the same way that windows installs often do? Is there a dedicated iso for hyper-v 2012r2 rather than installing 2012r2 + the role? (I've heard people mention it, but i couldn't see it on msvl) Looking to ditch vmware in favour of hyper-v next year, i don't feel vmware offers anything to us over hyper-v except a bigger hit in the wallet these days. Thanks
tmcd35 Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Can the same thing be done with hyper-v? or am i better off using disks for that? 64Gb SSD's are cheap enough and should do the job. How big is the footprint for the host OS with hyper-v? VHost4's C: drive currently sitting at 32Gb (EDIT: That's a full Windows Server 2012R2 install with GUI) Does it grow in size in the same way that windows installs often do? Not that I've ever noticed. vHost4 has been live for well over a year now. Is there a dedicated iso for hyper-v 2012r2 rather than installing 2012r2 + the role? (I've heard people mention it, but i couldn't see it on msvl) This one? Download Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 for Free! - MSTechSA - Site Home - TechNet Blogs Edited November 20, 2014 by tmcd35 1
win Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 - Use the HDDs in the server - Pretty big for 2012r2, less for 2008r2 (it will tell you if you're over the limit in 2012r2) - you can choose static of dynamic disk - not that i know of. Just choose hyper v in the roles to install, you don't need extra disks 1
sonofsanta Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 On a 2008R2 Hyper-V host that is 3½ years old, I have used 37GB. All it does is Hyper-V (in a cluster). 11GB is in winsxs, of course. So yes, it will grow, but 37GB after all that time with no efforts ever made to claw any of that back isn't the end of the world. So a pair of 64GB SSDs in RAID 1 will suit just fine. Not that you tend to get decent SSDs in 64GB these days - personally, for a server, I'd go for a pair of Samsung 850 Pros for their monster warranty. 1
Norphy Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I come from a background of using vmware, and all my host servers have no physical disks, instead they run the vmware ESXi off internal pen or sd flash storage, so i've got a few questions as to how this works with hyper-v.... Can the same thing be done with hyper-v? or am i better off using disks for that? I came across this problem when I was migrating some old VMware hosts to Hyper-V. The hosts booted ESXi from an internal 1GB SD card. There didn't appear to be a storage controller installed in the hosts so sticking in a pair of disks didn't work. I looked into booting Hyper-V from USB storage. It is apparently possible but almost completely impractical. You need a USB device which presents itself as a fixed disk to the OS and it needs to over-provisioned by 100%. Pretty much the only place you can get USB sticks like that from is from OEMs so I discounted that possibility. I ended up booting them from iSCSI volumes. The Broadcom NICs built into the servers gave me that facility so they're all connected to a Windows Storage Server with the iSCSI role enabled. The VHDs that they're connected to are 128GB volumes, none of the hosts are using more than 30% of that. 1
mrbios Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Perfect, just the answers i was looking for Thank you chaps. (I must say, when i use the term "disks" i do actually mean SSDs, just me talking lazy ) I came across this problem when I was migrating some old VMware hosts to Hyper-V. The hosts booted ESXi from an internal 1GB SD card. There didn't appear to be a storage controller installed in the hosts so sticking in a pair of disks didn't work. I looked into booting Hyper-V from USB storage. It is apparently possible but almost completely impractical. You need a USB device which presents itself as a fixed disk to the OS and it needs to over-provisioned by 100%. Pretty much the only place you can get USB sticks like that from is from OEMs so I discounted that possibility. I ended up booting them from iSCSI volumes. The Broadcom NICs built into the servers gave me that facility so they're all connected to a Windows Storage Server with the iSCSI role enabled. The VHDs that they're connected to are 128GB volumes, none of the hosts are using more than 30% of that. Ah thanks for letting me know that. I'm actually looking into a new storage device at the moment, what's your thoughts on windows storage server so far? (I ask that quite loosly as i've only just started looking) Download Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 for Free! - MSTechSA - Site Home - TechNet Blogs Is there any reason not to use that rather than a full install + role on top that you know of? Edited November 20, 2014 by mrbios
Arthur Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Is there any reason not to use that rather than a full install + role on top that you know of? www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13208 4
tmcd35 Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Is there any reason not to use that rather than a full install + role on top that you know of? You need Windows Server licences anyway for your host VMs, Hyper-V comes built in at no extra cost, The GUI is easier, You need to install to HDD anyway, The OS footprint will be less than any HDD's you can get hold of easily now days. I suppose, to me, you're asking the wrong question - why not use the full OS + Hyper-V? Unless you're host servers are over provisioned and you need every ounce of CPU and RAM you can lay your hands on for the guests? If that's the case I'd be advising buying a new server.
sparkeh Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13208 Well that about sums up the arguments I still always go full GUI.
Norphy Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Ah thanks for letting me know that. I'm actually looking into a new storage device at the moment, what's your thoughts on windows storage server so far? (I ask that quite loosly as i've only just started looking) It's good enough for use for the boot volumes. The VM store however is on an Equallogic SAN. I'm not sure I'd want to put a VM store on it though. Windows Storage Server otherwise seems reasonable. Is there any reason not to use that rather than a full install + role on top that you know of? No, I don't think so. In terms of Hyper-V features, a full Windows instance and this is pretty much identical. You can still do clustering, live migrations etc.
mrbios Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13208 Sounds good to me, GUI it is Like i say, new to hyper-v, won't even get to install it until next year (Replacing servers, storage and virtualisation solution all in one go) just want to be sure of what path I'm going down in advance. Edited November 20, 2014 by mrbios
SHimmer45 Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 once you have installed Hyper-V Server all of the management can be done thru the Hyper-V management tools installed on a client. iirc there is a guide published on MS about installing and running it from a flashdrive/memory stick. however the GUI would be easier if there is a problem and requires trouble shooting to fix it (bear in mind you can still remote into a hyper-v server to get at the shell but i find it awkward to use) the production hyper-v host is 2012R2 with a GUI and my test box is hyper-v server as it have alot less power and only i have to use it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now