none
When NOT to use Hyper-V for a server install?

    Question

  • Are there any instances--assuming basic CPU HW support for VMs exists--that you wouldn't want to install Windows Server 2016 virtualized?

    I'm thinking in particular of small businesses that buy low-end servers (mid-range Xeon, 8GB) and so aren't going to buy a beefy server of the sort one sees typically spec'd out to best support virtualization. File, print, database, and not much else.

    I'm also thinking of the extra complication that comes with Hyper-V compared to a straight install, along with reduced performance when you can't throw a lot of resources at it.

    In terms of disaster recovery, Windows Server (like Windows 10) does amazingly well when one piece of hardware--say, a HD--dies and needs to be replaced and restored to from backup, so the HW independence of a VM realistically isn't much of an advantage here.

    How do you all see it?

    Saturday, April 22, 2017 2:11 AM

All replies

  • Hi Sir,

    >>a HD--dies and needs to be replaced and restored to from backup, so the HW independence of a VM realistically isn't much of an advantage here.

    Generally , we may consider the data security for hyper-v virtualization .

    There are several solutions here , such as  FC,  iSCSI, SOFS ,JBOD .

    In windows server 2016 , it brought S2D , it doesn't rely on separate storage for storing VM files . It will use local attached disk to build cluster to achieve High Availability for storage .

    But if you are only going to build file,print,database server , and disk RAID would cover your needs ,  then you may consider straight installation on physical server . 

    Best Regards,

    Elton


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help.
    If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Monday, April 24, 2017 2:03 AM
    Moderator
  • The only time that I would not choose virtualization first is when there are clearly insurmountable barriers to virtualization. For example, a must-have PCI communications board that doesn't work with DDA.

    Most people radically oversize hardware for virtualization. Small organizations turning proportional amounts of work could do perfectly well on much less than they're being sold, virtualization or not. People are still trying to configure for 1:1 vCPU to pCore ratios and assign 8 GB of RAM for a file/print server to support 10 people that occasionally tinker with three-page Word documents. Systems designed with an ounce of forethought don't cost that much.

    I would counter your argument on hardware independence. A big organization will buy lots and lots of hardware that's more or less identical. That's what makes hardware independence mostly irrelevant for them. A little company is going to buy one server-class system and drive the wheels off of it. That system goes belly-up one day and you can't find replacement hardware for it because it's eight years old. Without virtualization, you're looking at a generation-spanning hardware migration with a gun to your head. With virtualization, you're looking at a basic restore job. Also with a gun to your head, to be sure, but with 100% confidence that everything will be fine. You can even bring in "loaner" equipment to carry them over while their permanent replacement system is being ordered, built, and shipped. Once it arrives, Live Migrate over at your leisure.

    I would have killed for these opportunities when I was doing field work for small businesses.


    Eric Siron
    Altaro Hyper-V Blog
    I am an independent contributor, not an Altaro employee. I accept all responsibility for the content of my posts. You accept all responsibility for any actions that you take based on the content of my posts.

    Monday, April 24, 2017 1:38 PM
  • Hi rseiler,

    Is there any update ?

    Best Regards,

    Elton


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help.
    If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:35 AM
    Moderator
  • Appreciate the feedback so far, and I've also noticed the super-high specs typically bandied about for virtualization.

    The complicating factors for many are pretty steep. I still think that's a significant barrier-to-entry--if you want to do it right, that is.

    Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:42 PM
  • Hi Sir,

    Actually , it depends on the environment .

    I'v also seen some small businesses only have two physical server to build a failover cluster with existing storage device .

    Best Regards,

    Elton


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help.
    If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Saturday, May 6, 2017 3:20 AM
    Moderator