Hyper-V differences

[fiza]

Can anyone tell me the difference in installing Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (which is a free download) straight onto the server and then adding VMs to it as compared with Installing Microsoft Server 2008 R2 Core with Hyper-V role and adding VMs to that??

 

I looking to build a new server to host VMs for Ubuntu, Server 2003 and Server 2008 R2. I have purchased Server 2008 R2 Enterprise but now not sure which is best way to go forward?

[jamesfed]

The only real differance is that Hyper-V server dosn't include virtulisation rights and 'normal' server 2008 does with Standard getting you the rights to run 1 VM, Enterprise giving you the rights to run 4 VMs and Datacentre the rights to run unlimited.

 

In that way if you are looking at deploying new servers on top of the ones you are making VMs out of then you should look at getting the required Server 2008 R2 cals, however if you are just VMing existing servers then you can run that off of Hyper-V server with no worries.

 

Some people will use Hyper-V server (or use Sevrer Core) and buy the CALs anyway (if they are deploying new servers) as Hyper-V server requires less overall system resources to run as it dosn't have a GUI.

[fiza]

I have Enterprise as I want to create 4 Virtual Servers (3 Microsoft and 1 Ubuntu). If I install Hyper-V R2 will that give me any benefits over Installing Server Core and then adding Hyper-V role?

If I didnt have Enterprise I would need to purchase licences for the Microsoft VMs, there isnt any other difference?

[sted]

basically the free download is server 2008 core so has no gui and uses less ram/cpu etc. It is also a bit of a pig to setup (i managed it once) as it all needs to be done via command line on that pc until a certain point then you need a win vista+ pc for the manglement console to make it do anything. Personally id rather waste the ram and have an install that has a usable console rather than a cmd line only interface but thats just my opinion

[fiza]

basically the free download is server 2008 core so has no gui and uses less ram/cpu etc.

 

Even more confused now!! So is the free Hyper-V 2008 R2 no more than Server Core install with Hyper-V role already built in? Bit like an Ubuntu Appliance?

I think I will have to use my Enterprise disk to install Server Core and then add Hyper-v so as to make use of the 4 licences included.

[Guest Guest]

Have you looked if Ubuntu has a HyperV compatible kernel/drivers? I managed it alright for debian but it certainly wasn't as easy as with citrix xen.

[glennda]

If you know linux/ubuntu well look at using KVM outperforms hyper-v and esxi IMHO (my tests anyway)

 

Plus has easy support for pretty much any os thats out there and tends to just work

 

Main Page - KVM

 

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM

[sted]

Even more confused now!! So is the free Hyper-V 2008 R2 no more than Server Core install with Hyper-V role already built in? Bit like an Ubuntu Appliance?

I think I will have to use my Enterprise disk to install Server Core and then add Hyper-v so as to make use of the 4 licences included.

basically yes hyper v server is a free single purpose version of server 08r2 its just 08r2 core with one role enabled by default(and i dont think any more roles can be added)

as far as im aware it has 0 imopact on your licensing if enterprise allows 3vm and one physical you can run 3vms on a hyperv server the physical is just not used

[fiza]

Have you looked if Ubuntu has a HyperV compatible kernel/drivers? I managed it alright for debian but it certainly wasn't as easy as with citrix xen.

 

Have a look at the link below. I havent tried it yet but will be following it soon ;

 

Narendra Patel's Blog » Installing Ubuntu Server 11.04 64bit on Hyper-V