Somethings You Need To Know About Hyper-V
-
We always give the clients their options when helping them make decisions: that being said the last 10 migrations we have done here is the breakdown:
Hyper-V : 8
Xenserver-1
The other I can't find. -
@hobbit666 said:
Complete Myth my friend, yes i admit getting the tools set-up on both a windows machine and get the settings right on the HyperV server can be a pain the first few times you do it (well it was for me). Once you got the hang of it deployment becomes easier. You also have free tools like 5nine manager to help.
To expand on this, as long as you join the Hyper-V server to the domain then there is almost no extra configuration needed on the Hyper-V host as that is how it is designed to work. Then you just add the Hyper-V tools on any other Windows 8.1 or Server 2012 machine and manage everything from there.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
Complete Myth my friend, yes i admit getting the tools set-up on both a windows machine and get the settings right on the HyperV server can be a pain the first few times you do it (well it was for me). Once you got the hang of it deployment becomes easier. You also have free tools like 5nine manager to help.
To expand on this, as long as you join the Hyper-V server to the domain then there is almost no extra configuration needed on the Hyper-V host as that is how it is designed to work. Then you just add the Hyper-V tools on any other Windows 8.1 or Server 2012 machine and manage everything from there.
How does that work in a one server situation? you need to reboot the host and....?
-
@Dashrender said:
How does that work in a one server situation? you need to reboot the host and....?
The same as a one server setup with any other Hypervisor? You declare a maintenance window and shut down the guests and reboot.
What are you actually getting at?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller What is the ratio of XenServer to Hyper-V that you guys are seeing your clients adopt?
HyperV wins by far. XS is more niche, but still very viable and the only real competitor to HyperV at this point in the SMB. Because both have the full stack for free, and both are quite mature (Xen being extremely mature and HyperV finally getting there) there is little means for another vendor to wiggle into the space.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
How does that work in a one server situation? you need to reboot the host and....?
The same as a one server setup with any other Hypervisor? You declare a maintenance window and shut down the guests and reboot.
What are you actually getting at?
Can you log into the Hyper-V hypervisor while the VM that is the DC is down?
-
@Dashrender said:
Can you log into the Hyper-V hypervisor while the VM that is the DC is down?
Can you log in to your workstation when the DC is down?
The answer is of course you can. Windows caches credentials. Always has.
Even if you somehow have been down so long that cached credentials no longer work, it is just like any other windows system ever made. Log in with the local account.
All of that said though, if you properly configured your Hyper-V server to launch the various guests at power on, then this will not be an issue anyway.
-
@Dashrender said:
Can you log into the Hyper-V hypervisor while the VM that is the DC is down?
I should add this to the list of myths. I forgot how often people feel that HyperV either is required to be on a domain or that being on a domain makes it super fragile. You can do HyperV standalone if you want or, as @JaredBusch points out, lacking AD does not stop you from logging into a machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Can you log into the Hyper-V hypervisor while the VM that is the DC is down?
I should add this to the list of myths. I forgot how often people feel that HyperV either is required to be on a domain or that being on a domain makes it super fragile. You can do HyperV standalone if you want or, as @JaredBusch points out, lacking AD does not stop you from logging into a machine.
Hyper-V is DESIGNED to be on a domain. So that is the best way to manage it. But as with anything else Windows, a domain is not required.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Hyper-V is DESIGNED to be on a domain. So that is the best way to manage it. But as with anything else Windows, a domain is not required.
Sure, not disagreeing there. It's generally the best way to go. But if you are on a workground or have no AD or whatever, those aren't barriers to HyperV.
-
It sounds like it might be feasible to run a free Hyper-V host without any sort of Windows VM involved... As I am a fan of irony, I may just have to try it and see what I can do with ManageEngine's Hyper-V configuration tool (the best free option Google has found for me so far).
-
@WingCreative said:
It sounds like it might be feasible to run a free Hyper-V host without any sort of Windows VM involved... As I am a fan of irony, I may just have to try it and see what I can do with ManageEngine's Hyper-V configuration tool (the best free option Google has found for me so far).
Absolutely. There is no Windows dependency in HyperV whatsoever. You can use HyperV for a Linux only system top to bottom.
-
And there are even businesses cases where that would make sense. Not a ton, but they exist.
-
@scottalanmiller Fate is not without a sense of irony.
-
@WingCreative said:
It sounds like it might be feasible to run a free Hyper-V host without any sort of Windows VM involved... As I am a fan of irony, I may just have to try it and see what I can do with ManageEngine's Hyper-V configuration tool (the best free option Google has found for me so far).
It would be an odd & rare choice though, if you're only going to use linux. You'd likely get better preformance out of other hypervisors and better management.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@WingCreative said:
It sounds like it might be feasible to run a free Hyper-V host without any sort of Windows VM involved... As I am a fan of irony, I may just have to try it and see what I can do with ManageEngine's Hyper-V configuration tool (the best free option Google has found for me so far).
It would be an odd & rare choice though, if you're only going to use linux. You'd likely get better preformance out of other hypervisors and better management.
It sounds more odd than it is. Yes, Xen will beat anyone at that workload. But SMBs just don't have a need for performance. They all think that that matters, but it doesn't. Losing 1% to overhead is not noticeable to 99.99% of SMBs. And even fewer of the ones using only one server. And if that really is a factor, you can overcome it with a few dollars of additional hardware on that one server.
What HyperV brings to the table that XenServer lacks is free backup utilities that are end user friendly like Unitrends and Veeam. These are lacking on XenServer. Nearly everyone needs backup, almost no one needs the extra performance. So in those rare cases where you are an SMB, have only one server and need everything to be Linux, there is actually a reasonable chance that HyperV might make more sense.
Of course, XenServer should be more stable there, a tiny bit faster, easier to manage and if you are 100% Linux you can probably figure out backups on your own since XS supports that. But it stills leaves space for HyperV to play nicely.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@WingCreative said:
It sounds like it might be feasible to run a free Hyper-V host without any sort of Windows VM involved... As I am a fan of irony, I may just have to try it and see what I can do with ManageEngine's Hyper-V configuration tool (the best free option Google has found for me so far).
It would be an odd & rare choice though, if you're only going to use linux. You'd likely get better preformance out of other hypervisors and better management.
It sounds more odd than it is. Yes, Xen will beat anyone at that workload. But SMBs just don't have a need for performance. They all think that that matters, but it doesn't. Losing 1% to overhead is not noticeable to 99.99% of SMBs. And even fewer of the ones using only one server. And if that really is a factor, you can overcome it with a few dollars of additional hardware on that one server.
What HyperV brings to the table that XenServer lacks is free backup utilities that are end user friendly like Unitrends and Veeam. These are lacking on XenServer. Nearly everyone needs backup, almost no one needs the extra performance. So in those rare cases where you are an SMB, have only one server and need everything to be Linux, there is actually a reasonable chance that HyperV might make more sense.
Of course, XenServer should be more stable there, a tiny bit faster, easier to manage and if you are 100% Linux you can probably figure out backups on your own since XS supports that. But it stills leaves space for HyperV to play nicely.
This is pretty much my reasoning @thecreativeone91 - I'm tired of checking out things like Veeam B&R and realizing that I can't use it on my current hypervisor of choice because they only support "all major hypervisors"... AKA VMware and Hyper-V.
-
@WingCreative said:
I'm tired of checking out things like Veeam B&R and realizing that I can't use it on my current hypervisor of choice because they only support "all major hypervisors"... AKA VMware and Hyper-V.
This is a difference in ecosystem mentality. If you use XenServer, don't get third party tools, use what is provided for you. If you use HyperV or VMware, assume you need third party tools to do the job.
XS doesn't need a backup utility, backups are baked in, but they are more limited. It's not that needing Unitrends (which doesn't work on ESXi Free either!!) or Veeam isn't okay, it's just that you need to go into XS assuming the product is the product and that the VMware mentality of the application just being the first piece isn't going to work. Can you get third party tools for XS? Yes, of course. But don't go into it thinking that way. All the basics are there, if they are what you need, done. If not, it's probably the wrong tool set.
-
Makes sense - Mainly for now I just want the ability to tell potential clients that it's not just me and my configurations making sure their data is backed up automatically, and I really like the idea of my backup application testing itself regularly. I will probably have both hypervisors running once I can snag another test server and do some side-by-side feature comparisons.
-
@WingCreative said:
Makes sense - Mainly for now I just want the ability to tell potential clients that it's not just me and my configurations making sure their data is backed up automatically....
It's always like that. At the end of the day, whether you are configuring built in backups or third party ones, it is you and your config that they have to trust.
