Best Practices Analyzer Recommends Server Core (Server 2012 Build 9200)

All replies

• 

  

  1

  Sign in to vote

  Hi,

  > I am thinking about setting one of the hosts and all VMs except the web server to Server Core. If I do that,
  > will I be able to set up all the Server Core server to be managed with the Dashboard on the Host with a
  > GUI??

  If your physical server has network connection to these 4 VMs, you can use Server Manager to remotely manage server core.

  > will that improve my environment with respect to RAM use

  Yes. Since no user interface and less running processes, Server Core has lower disk and memory requirements than full installation.

  But what I’m concern is whether you really need Server Core?

  According to your description, you deployed Hyper-V hosts on two desktop computers, and that computer looks have powerful configuration than normal home PC. But desktop computer is also not recommended to be set as production server. If they are really in production environment, we recommend replace them with standard server platform.

  If these VMs are not in production, I think it’s not necessary to spend so much time to reinstall them with server core and configure them.

  Just like you mentioned, the bottleneck is RAM. Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 introduces a new feature “Dynamic Memory”. With Dynamic Memory, Hyper-V treats memory as a shared resource that can be reallocated automatically among running virtual machines. Dynamic Memory adjusts the amount of memory available to a virtual machine, based on changes in memory demand and values that you specify.

  Configure dynamic memory for your VMs, which may very useful in your scenario.

  For more information please refer to following MS articles:

  Why Is Server Core Useful?
  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd184076.aspx
  Remote Management with Server Manager
  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759202.aspx
  Hyper-V Dynamic Memory Configuration Guide
  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff817651(v=WS.10).aspx

  ---

  Lawrence

  TechNet Community Support

  

  • Marked as answer by ECase Monday, October 15, 2012 3:54 PM

  Friday, October 12, 2012 7:53 AM
• 

  

  1

  Sign in to vote

  My recommendation from the beginning has always been that if you are not comfortable managing things from the command line, and have procedures in place to do so, then you should run the full installation with GUI.  Yes, it is recommended to use the core installation, but there is no difference in how Hyper-V runs in a core or full installation.  Yes, Windows Server 2012 has improved the remote management capabilities tremendously in regards to using a remote GUI to manage the boxes, but there are still some things that require command.  Yes, you can go back and forth between the GUI and core in 2012, but it still requires at least a reboot (instead of the complete reinstallation of 2008).  As a result, if you need the GUI to troubleshoot an issue, and you are running in core, the reboot will likely clear the error you were trying to troubleshoot.

  Bottom line is that there are advantages to core installations, but until you feel comfortable performing all operations from core, I would still recommend using full.

  ---

  tim

  Friday, October 12, 2012 12:37 PM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  According to your description, you deployed Hyper-V hosts on two desktop computers, and that computer looks have powerful configuration than normal home PC. But desktop computer is also not recommended to be set as production server. If they are really in production environment, we recommend replace them with standard server platform.
  

  If these VMs are not in production, I think it’s not necessary to spend so much time to reinstall them with server core and configure them.

  Hi Lawrence,

  Thanks for the feedback.  I realize desktop machines are not suitable nor recommended for server work, but the VMs are in a production environment.  Until I have the means to swap out the Hyper-V hosts is it then a good idea to set the VMs to server core and manage them from one Hyper-V machine?

  Some follow up questions I had, if anyone can answer:

  • If I set the first Hyper-V machine (Host1) and all VMs except the Web Server (VM2) to run as server core, and then manage everything via the second Hyper-V machine (Host2) dashboard GUI, will it significantly increase the memory demand on Host2?  I assume the additional GUI components added to Host2 will result in higher memory use, correct?  But will it raise it to the point that it chokes out the VMs attached to Host2 (VM3 & VM4)??
  • It's important to attach each VM to the most optimal Hyper-V host based on the role of the VM, the VM's importance in the environment, and the resources of the Hyper-V Host.  Since both of my Hyper-V Hosts have comparable memory (8GB), can anyone review my purposed deployment and tell me if it needs to be changed?  Such as which VM is attached to which Host, and so on.
  • For an office environment consisting of 30 desktop machines, one linux voip server machine, the six windows server 2012 machines, perhaps less than ten WiFi devices, and maybe ten active remote clients connecting to the web server from over the wan, do I have the appropriate configuration of domain controllers (two DCs and one RODC)?

  Thanks to everyone in advance for feedback!

  Ethan

  Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:31 PM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Hi Tim,

  Thanks for your reply.  Can you tell me if it is possible to enter PowerShell commands on one Hyper-V host for another machine, such as a VM or even another Hyper-V host?

  Thanks

  Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:35 PM
• 

  

  1

  Sign in to vote

  Absolutely!  Many PowerShell commands have the ability to specify a remote host on which to run.  PowerShell itself has the ability to open a remote session on another host and execute commands there.  I like to set up a 'management workstation' from which I run all my PowerShell scripts against the remote hosts.

  ---

  tim

  Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:54 AM
• 

  

  1

  Sign in to vote

  Server Core is not going to give you a noticeable difference in memory.  That was never a goal of core.  The big difference in core is that it requires significantly fewer patches and reboots than a full installation.

  You can save memory by getting rid of the RODC.  Why would you need two full DCs and an RODC?  Generally the purpose for an RODC is to deploy one into a remote office where security is a concern.  If you have a single site installation with two normal DCs, there is no need for an RODC.

  Lawrence has a very valid point about getting this installed on server hardware.  From your description, it sounds like you are concerned that you get the configuration 'right'.  One of the most important aspects of any configuration is supportability.  If you are running Windows Server on desktop systems instead of server systems, you are running on unsupported hardware.  (www.windowsservercatalog.com lists the servers that have been logo certified for running Windows Server).  Now, I think Microsoft will do a great job in assisting you with issues, even on an unsupported platform, but there are always those issues that come up where they have to say that you are running on an unsupported platform and you are on your own.

  ---

  tim

  Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:04 PM