Cazale Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Hey, Scenario: small primary, fairly beefy, brand new server (a couple of Xeon Processors, 32gb RAM, RAID 1 SSDs, RAID 6 10k SAS drives) to replace an aging server from a few years ago. I'm going to go virtualised for the backup/recovery/snapshot advantages., but it's likely most services will run within a single VM (maybe 2 at most). I'm not based on site, and manage a lot of things remotely. We previously had an issue with Hyper V Server (2016 - although this time I'll be using 2019) where we were hitting all sorts of roadblocks trying to connect to the host remotely. We'd solve one thing then hit another roadblock (I think one of the issues may have been CredSSP - but it was a while ago, so I may be getting my facts mixed up). It became a right pain in the proverbial. Discussing this with someone, they said they no longer bother with the slimmed down Hyper V installs anymore, and they just install the full version of Server 201x, and then install the VMs under that, as the overhead isn't as vital on modern servers. I've just always installed the host from Hyper V Server. I can imagine it's certainly more user friendly/easy to do it the way he suggested. I'm just wondering what other people do? Am I likely to see any significant hit on performance with a full server install? Edited July 24, 2019 by Cazale
Jcx500 Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 Full Windows Server Gui Install (2016) with hyper-v role 1
Guest Guest Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 We've always ran HyperV Server and never had any issues managing it using Remote Desktop and the normal Admin Tools
mgs1990 Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 we experienced a ridiclous amount of issues with Hyper V Server 2016 in its first few months, especially when using clustering or MPIO, so much so we ripped it out and put Hyper-v server 2012 back in. We put HyperV server 2019 in 3 weeks ago and havent had any major issues managing it, infact we havent had any issues at all *touch wood*. The Built in Microsoft management tools & the admin center pretty much does all we need, so cant comment on compatibility with 3rd party tools, Veeam & Naviko work with it too so backups arent a problem. We thought about putting in a fully fledged version of server 2019 but decided against it as Hyperv server has fewer vulnerabilities as it only installs the componets it needs and if we did go full server someone will no doubt use the server for something which will require us to get another license. 1
mavhc Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 Seeing as how the only thing you really want to do is connect to it via hyperv manager, or rdp in to do updates, change ip, check the mapping of physical ethernet ports to windows network devices, hyper-v core is probably better. Unless you want to use storage spaces. Main advantage: fewer updates, fewer reboots, less attack surface Main disadvantage: worse at storage spaces, which you want because of tiered ssd to hdd storage in software. 1
Cazale Posted July 24, 2019 Author Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Hyperv server has fewer vulnerabilities as it only installs the componets it needs and if we did go full server someone will no doubt use the server for something which will require us to get another license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Win server licenses included both host and VM licenses? 1 host 2VMs for Standard, and 1 host unlimited VMs for Datacentre. So (if I'm thinking right) unless you're using nested VM, the host is covered by the VM license anyway? (or the other way around if you prefer) Edited July 24, 2019 by Cazale
Norphy Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 I don't use Hyper-V Server but I do use the Core edition of Windows Server 2019. Setting up the hosts via the CLI isn't that hard and once it's done, it's done.
mavhc Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Win server licenses included both host and VM licenses? 1 host 2VMs for Standard, and 1 host unlimited VMs for Datacentre. So (if I'm thinking right) unless you're using nested VM, the host is covered by the VM license anyway? (or the other way around if you prefer) Yeah, except that 3rd licence for the host is only supposed to be for hyper v role.
mgs1990 Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Win server licenses included both host and VM licenses? 1 host 2VMs for Standard, and 1 host unlimited VMs for Datacentre. So (if I'm thinking right) unless you're using nested VM, the host is covered by the VM license anyway? (or the other way around if you prefer) pretty much as mavhc said really Standard covers you for 2 VM's & 1 host, providing the host is only used for the HyperV role. As soon as you use it for something other than that, you'll need to license it
Davit2005 Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) Slimed down version of Hyper-V is a pain to setup to manage compared to ESXi or Citrix XenServer and I would not consider using the core version unless I had a physical DC. Install the GUI but do not allow anyone to install any software on the host any roles/features not needed. Edited July 25, 2019 by Davit2005
mavhc Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 Slimed down version of Hyper-V is a pain to setup to manage compared to ESXi or Citrix XenServer and I would not consider using the core version unless I had a physical DC. Install the GUI but do not allow anyone to install any software on the host any roles/features not needed. What do you find painful about it?
Norphy Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 What do you find painful about it? I'm curious about that too. Once the server is on the network, joined to the domain and has its volumes set up, everything can be managed through management tools installed on a Windows client. It's not significantly harder to set up than ESXi and I'm not sure what difference having a physical DC makes to the process unless you're talking about clustering. Even then, Windows Failover Clusters no longer require DCs to be available to start since Windows 2016 came onto the market.
mavhc Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 I go back and forth as to whether your hypervisor being on the domain is a good idea. Ease of use it's great, security wise seems a bit crazy
Norphy Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 With Hyper-v, if you want it to be clustered, it has to be on a domain.
Norphy Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 Yes, but that would mean the extra overhead of having to run another domain. The university I used to work for does that.
Davit2005 Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) I'm curious about that too. Once the server is on the network, joined to the domain and has its volumes set up, everything can be managed through management tools installed on a Windows client. It's not significantly harder to set up than ESXi and I'm not sure what difference having a physical DC makes to the process unless you're talking about clustering. Even then, Windows Failover Clusters no longer require DCs to be available to start since Windows 2016 came onto the market. I am talking about the core version with no GUI. I've just found that manageability is easier if it is joined to the domain and the only experience I had with Hyper-V was when the DC went down on the Hyper-V Server core host back on 2012 and the host had been joined to the domain. But having no GUI HyperVisor is definately the wy to go. It stops someone installing some sort of crud software on the host :-). Edited July 25, 2019 by Davit2005
mavhc Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 Same problem as when your AD fails, no one can find the original local admin password as no one's used it in a decade
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