Negotiated Drive Speed
-
I disagree with @scottalanmiller that XS is the best choice. Hyper-V is simply easier and more supported by both the old school stack of vendors and also by consultants and MSPs across the country (world).
There are really good products in the pipeline that will tip this balance to XS, but that point is at least 12 months in the future from my point of view.
All of that aside though, you have a server. Install a damned hypervisor on it and P2V your failing system. There is no excuse for not doing this right now, today.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I disagree with @scottalanmiller that XS is the best choice. Hyper-V is simply easier and more supported by both the old school stack of vendors and also by consultants and MSPs across the country (world).
I just don't see it being easier. Just figuring out the licensing alone is more complicated than actually using XenServer, even thought the licensing itself is basically zero. Hyper-V is hard enough that you have to have hours of conversations around it just to understand how it works.
It might be "easy" to get up and running. But comparing getting Hyper-V installed to XenServer, I just don't see it on par. Pop in that XS install CD and I don't know anything easier.
-
After talking to @scottalanmiller a little today, I think the reason I thought Hyper-V was easier was because it was Windows based. (I was using the GUI version.) But I misunderstood how it worked, to be honest.
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
-
GUI being an example. Using Hyper-V on a server introduces the compication of either having a control VM (with licensing overhead and confusion and the actual system overhead and patching issues) that you then manage via RDP, which isn't idea. Or moving to PowerShell which is great, but not as easy. Or getting a third party tool, which is fine, but the free ones are very limiting and harder.
XenServer's "native" GUI is XenCenter and while it isn't the best, it is ridiculously simple. Just install on any Windows desktop and ta da, easier, more robust management for beginners than I've see on Hyper-V. And with lots of other benefits, too.
-
@BRRABill said:
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
Even GUI based, I think XenServer is easier. The Hyper-V GUI options are more convoluted, limited and confusing. Not bad, just not on par.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
GUI being an example. Using Hyper-V on a server introduces the compication of either having a control VM (with licensing overhead and confusion and the actual system overhead and patching issues) that you then manage via RDP, which isn't idea. Or moving to PowerShell which is great, but not as easy. Or getting a third party tool, which is fine, but the free ones are very limiting and harder.
XenServer's "native" GUI is XenCenter and while it isn't the best, it is ridiculously simple. Just install on any Windows desktop and ta da, easier, more robust management for beginners than I've see on Hyper-V. And with lots of other benefits, too.
You are adding complication by not using the users existing Windows desktop environment.
Yes if the company is not a Windows shop then these benefits of Hyper-V go poof.
But @BRRABill runs a Windows shop. The only quesiton then becomes are the desktops used by those who need to administer Hyper-V Windows 8.1+ or Windows 7. If it is a Windows 8.1+ desktop then all of the tools are natively included. You simply turn them on. RDP is the worst way to manage then after setup is complete.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You are adding complication by not using the users existing Windows desktop environment.
I'm don't understand this. I thought that I was doing exactly the opposite - making it easier by leveraging the existing Windows desktop environment.
Maybe I'm just missing how to do this easily with Hyper-V short of kludgy things like running a Windows Server VM for a GUI and then RDPing into it from a desktop.
-
@BRRABill said:
After talking to @scottalanmiller a little today, I think the reason I thought Hyper-V was easier was because it was Windows based. (I was using the GUI version.) But I misunderstood how it worked, to be honest.
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
Did you talk to anyone that lives in reality also? @scottalanmiller's perception of real world SMB IT is severely scewed from many others. The world does not exist in his perfect black and white perception of what should be done.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Yes if the company is not a Windows shop then these benefits of Hyper-V go poof.
That's where I'm confused. In Windows environments specifically, I find XenServer easier to use and Hyper-V more effort.
-
@JaredBusch said:
The only quesiton then becomes are the desktops used by those who need to administer Hyper-V Windows 8.1+ or Windows 7. If it is a Windows 8.1+ desktop then all of the tools are natively included. You simply turn them on. RDP is the worst way to manage then after setup is complete.
Ah okay, this must be what I'm missing. There is a Hyper-V management GUI that does not require a Hyper-V local GUI but is included with the desktop environment?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
You are adding complication by not using the users existing Windows desktop environment.
I'm don't understand this. I thought that I was doing exactly the opposite - making it easier by leveraging the existing Windows desktop environment.
Maybe I'm just missing how to do this easily with Hyper-V short of kludgy things like running a Windows Server VM for a GUI and then RDPing into it from a desktop.
Because you do not need a Windows Server instance of any kind to manage Hyper-V server.
-
What's this on, say, windows 8.1. Is it like "Hyper-V Management Role"?
-
@JaredBusch said:
Because you do not need a Windows Server instance of any kind to manage Hyper-V server.
Just to be sure I'm on the same page here. You are NOT talking about setting up Hyper-V as a role on a physical server, correct?
So the scenario would be:
1 license of Server 2012 Standard
1 physical server, running Server 2012 with the Hyper-V role selected
2 Server 2012 VMs running on said physical serverThat is how I had it set up.
-
Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 both include this.
-
@BRRABill said:
@JaredBusch said:
Because you do not need a Windows Server instance of any kind to manage Hyper-V server.
Just to be sure I'm on the same page here. You are NOT talking about setting up Hyper-V as a role on a physical server, correct?
So the scenario would be:
1 license of Server 2012 Standard
1 physical server, running Server 2012 with the Hyper-V role selected
2 Server 2012 VMs running on said physical serverThat is how I had it set up.
I NEVER use Server 2012 R2 + Hyper-V
I only ever user Hyper-V Server 2012. There is no licensing involved in this.
-
Then from my Windows 10 desktop I have Hyper-V manager.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I NEVER use Server 2012 R2 + Hyper-V
I only ever user Hyper-V Server 2012. There is no licensing involved in this.
Ah.....
-
The only need for RDP to the Hyper-V server is for the initial setup. once that is fully setup, the only time you need to RDP into it (or ScreenConnect in my case) is to install Windows updates and reboot.
-
@JaredBusch said:
The only need for RDP to the Hyper-V server is for the initial setup. once that is fully setup, the only time you need to RDP into it (or ScreenConnect in my case) is to install Windows updates and reboot.
In fact you can install the RSAT on your desktop and reboot from that too.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I NEVER use Server 2012 R2 + Hyper-V
I only ever user Hyper-V Server 2012. There is no licensing involved in this.
When I was doing my research on this, it seemed to me that Server 2012 R2 + Hyper-V VERSUS the free Hyper-V server were basically almost the same.
Such as is said in this thread:
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/0b5fcd33-ecc7-4aea-9e27-cb0ed9fed236/hyperv-2012-vs-windows-server-2012-w-hyperv-role?forum=winserverhyperv
