Negotiated Drive Speed
-
@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 -
@BRRABill said:
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.
The Hyper-V piece of it is the same. The weight of the management VM is the big difference.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
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.
The Hyper-V piece of it is the same. The weight of the management VM is the big difference.
They are the same thing in as much as it is basically server core + hyper-v.
They are not the same thing when it comes to licensing.
-
I consider ESXi the easiest to manage from a SMB point of view. You have the vSphere windows client or the brand new web client to manage ESXi servers one by one. If you buy an Essentials license you get vCenter for ESXi that enables you to manage all of your ESXi hosts in a single pane of glass.
XenServer with XenCenter is the middle of the ground (I haven't tried XenOrchestra yet). You get a single pane of glass more or less, but it is missing a lot of features that vSphere client. You'll find yourself needing to drop to the CLI to do some tasks - for example, you can't tell what actual files belong to what VM except through the CLI.
Last place is Hyper-V. You can fully mange the whole thing from a Windows desktop (once install is done). Install RSAT and Hyper-V Manager tools (see JB's post above). The thing that made me leap away from using Hyper-V was that I had to mange Hyper-V like I manage windows itself - a different tool for every aspect. If I wanted to manage the disks on the Hyper-V host, You have to use the Disk Management in Computer Management. If you want to manage the VMs themselves, you have to use Hyper-V manager. Having to hope between two to three apps was frustrating after using ESXi for 6+ years.
JB is a huge fan of Hyper-V. I think he will think XS is usable once he gets a change to use it for a while, but his comfort with Hyper-V will probably keep him there for a while.
-
@Dashrender said:
I consider ESXi the easiest to manage from a SMB point of view. You have the vSphere windows client or the brand new web client to manage ESXi servers one by one. If you buy an Essentials license you get vCenter for ESXi that enables you to manage all of your ESXi hosts in a single pane of glass.
This one is tough. ESXi Free is harder, I feel, but ESXi licensed is the easiest. But the difference is minor and for the SMB market that licensing cost and effort is non-trivial. So while I do agree that when licensed it is insanely easy, when it isn't it loses the single pain of glass making it more cumbersome, I feel, than XS with XC.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I consider ESXi the easiest to manage from a SMB point of view. You have the vSphere windows client or the brand new web client to manage ESXi servers one by one. If you buy an Essentials license you get vCenter for ESXi that enables you to manage all of your ESXi hosts in a single pane of glass.
This one is tough. ESXi Free is harder, I feel, but ESXi licensed is the easiest. But the difference is minor and for the SMB market that licensing cost and effort is non-trivial. So while I do agree that when licensed it is insanely easy, when it isn't it loses the single pain of glass making it more cumbersome, I feel, than XS with XC.
If you buy an agent based backup solution, then ESXi free is still every bit as easy as the paid one one.
