Hyper-V Server or 2008 full?

[djones]

Just about to build a new server to replace an existing lone, does everything server. I plan to use Hyper-V as host but not sure whether to use the Hyper-V server or full blown 2008 R2 with Hyper-V. Any suggestions?

 

Dave

[sted]

the advantage of using a full server is you have a local interface you can use. The disadvantage is needing an extra 4gb or so to run an os thats essentially doing naff all

[djones]

4gig! Wow, really?! I've planned for 2gb for a full host install!

[SYNACK]

4GB is a massive overstatment, 2GB or even 1.5GB should be fine for the host install as long as you are not running extra services off it. Could probably go down to 1GB but then you would be cutting it a bit thin with AV etc on the host box.

 

You could of course use server core as your host OS which would be fine with 1GB but then you may as well be running a basic Hyper-V server.

[sparkeh]

I went for full server 2008R2 standard (and 2GB has been fine) mostly for the local GUI.

To be honest, if I were to do it again I would probably use Hyper-V server over standard as I most remote in anyway and Hyper-V Server has a few more features which I could have taken advantage of in the future such as clustering and live migration.

 

Alternatively I would have gone for full enterprise version server; all the features and more VM licences.

 

Version comparison is here

[djones]

What about if I plan to use BackupExec 2010 to backup the VMs? Would this be best installed and run on the host rather than individual VMs? Would I then be 'forced' down the full 2008 R2 install rather than Hyper-V server?

[sted]

4gig! Wow, really?! I've planned for 2gb for a full host install!

 

i just found with 2gb anything i wanted to do on the host was a pain reassign the ram round and the vm and host seemed happier 2008 r2 enterprise btw

[tmcd35]

We use Win2k8 r2 Datacenter here. Seems to work without any probs leaving 2Gb for the host OS.

[sted]

We use Win2k8 r2 Datacenter here. Seems to work without any probs leaving 2Gb for the host OS.

 

like i said i just found it ran better with 4 it may just be me but tbh ram isnt that expensive to just shove another stick or 2 in and never harms having more

[FN-GM]

Our test machines run fine with the OS having 1GB. I would use around 2GB for a full server install.

 

It depends if you are comfortable with having to troubleshoot the server should it go wrong without a GUI. If you have become reliant on the GUI you should probably stick with it and use the full version. The last thing you want is to be stuck when fixing a server you need backup ASAP.