Central Server-based Hyper-V VDI costs vs individual Client Hyper-V on workstations? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I'm trying to see if there is any way to cost-effectively build a 2 Server Hyper-V cluster that can run 100  high-performing Windows 7 virtual machines that will be all have somewhat different apps that users will install and uninstall regularly and have this configuration not cost much more than adding the VMs to existing workstations as client Hyper-V virtual machines.

    We would need VMM 2012 R2 so we could delegate limited management ability of each VM to the end user.

    The workstations will be doing relatively heavy software development work with many simultaneous applications running.  Users currently have i5 workstations with 16GB RAM and SSD drives.  They will need similar performance from the VMs.

    We are not a candidate for thin clients because the users will need access to 2 systems. 

    1.  Normal office system running as limited user for normal office apps that don't require admin rights, and these will have access to the Internet for email, web and IM.

    2.  Developer and/or testing workstation requiring admins rights with frequent software installs and uninstalls and ability to run debugging tools.

    If we had thin clients, that would double the amount of VDI clients since they would still need both an office workstation and a developer or testing workstation.  With a full Windows workstation, their office system can run on the host and the development and testing systems can run in Client Hyper-V.

    What kind of hardware would we be looking at for an adequately performing setup with 2 Hyper-V 2012 R2 servers with enough RAM, networking, CPU and disk space and I/O for this load and with virtual SAN for live migration and redundancy?

    I suspect that it will be shockingly expensive compared to deploying client Hyper-V or even VMWare Workstation to 100 workstations, but I'd like to see what people say first.

    Even if it costs somewhat more, we will consider it if it add great benefits, but not if it drastically more expensive to implement and maintain.

    Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:43 PM


  • Hi MyGposts,

    The Hyper-V failover cluster only offer the high ability but not the double performance (even we have two node we can not get double performance), therefore if you use the failover cluster solution it may need the high individual node, now you have the VMM 2012R2, the management will more convenient, same time for the development with client Hyper-V it easy to switch the develop system and the host system and it is free (if you have the requirement edition system), my suggestion is you can choose the client Hyper-V solution.

    More information:

    Client Hyper-V

    I’m glad to be of help to you!

    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact

    Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:26 AM