locked
Should I use Hyper-V CORE (free) or use the WIndows Server 2012 R2 Essentials server ROLE for initial fresh install? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Small business server. 5 users or so. Active Directory, DNS etc.

    Per the subject, which route is best to take here.  It isn't very clear on the MS site where you download the trials etc.  Seems the ROLE method is unnecessarily redundant?  i.e. already installed physical WS2012R2E using UEFI to physical server...then added Hyper-V Role...create VM, install YET AGAIN WS2012RE?  Am I missing somethign here?

    Also, after I download the free Hyper-V .iso, and use Windows 8.1 Pro to burn the .iso to DVD...does it automatically make it bootable?  So I can start fresh installing the CORE version to the PHYSICAL server?  then add a VM of the WS2012R2E from there?

    I guess the CORE CLI version scares me a bit, versus the GUI which I prefer of the ROLE method.  Not that a cannot handle it, appears pretty straight forward.

    If I use the ROLE method, is it essentially the same as if installing the CORE method initially?  Doens't seem so, as the physical OS on the Physical server boots first, then you have to run a redundant VM duplicate instance of the same OS from that point? (I have only 1 purchased copy of  W2012R2E) Kinda confused why this is preferred???  Am I going to have trouble backing up everything whichever method I choose?

    Thank you!

    Friday, August 14, 2015 6:20 AM

All replies

  • If you're go the Role route, your host OS becomes a VM, the primary partition.  It's a common misconception, Hyper-V is always a type 1 hypervisor regardless of the OSes involved.  Type 1 is direct on the hardware (Hyper-V, ESXi, Xen), VirtualBox is a type 2, that runs as an application.

    Do you want an MS GUI or not? That is the difference.  There are 3rd party add-on GUIs for Hyper-V Core (like 5nine's Hyper-V manager which is free) .  If you're really new to Hyper-V, it is easier to use the GUI.

    You're allowed to run the host instance and the VM instance of Essentials if you only install the Hyper-V role on the physical server.

    In the future, please use the Hyper-V group here: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverhyperv/threads

    This forum is for the product Virtual Server 2005.

    Friday, August 14, 2015 4:20 PM
  • Thank you for the clarification on the correct group... I wasn't aware of the winserverhyperv group.  thank you.

    So if I follow you correctly, since Hyper-V is a type 1 direct on hardware level (bare metal?) and not a Type 2 like VirtualBox application level, then I should be good.Yhe reason I am asking is I guess I feel since I already installed the OS, then came in after the fact and added the Hyper-V role, that I have that common misconception that the Hyper-V is at application level within or below the OS.  SO I got to thinking, well maybe I should get the CORE free version, install that first from scratch, and then the CORE would be on top or contain the OS as a VM within.

    So even though I added the ROLE, Hyper-V is still essentially at the same level as if I initially installed CORE?  at the top and contains the OS VM after I create the VM and install the OS again.  But before doing so, apparently I MUST REMOVE ALL ROLES except Hyper-V or there will be a license conflict from what I hear with Essentials?  And can be a real problem from which I hear.  Yes, I prefer the GUI.

    In the end I just want to make sure the Hyper-V is ON TOP with the Essentials OS within or below it.  Which sounds like the CORE method does.  I just feel like the ROLE method is the complete opposite?  Or maybe it isn't?  Maybe UNDER THE HOOD or BEHIND THE SCENES it's the same as if just installing the CORE instead FIRST?

    Thank you very much for you time and help!

    Friday, August 14, 2015 6:24 PM