2

Can we use this question to collect information and the pros and cons of each of the above products?

Specifically I am wondering whethere there is any sane reason to use Hyper-V (the role built into Windows Server) over Hyper-V server (the stand-alone product based on the same technology) and what exactly the differences are between ESXi, Xen and Hyper-V and why nobody seems to use Parallels Bare Metal.

Make this a Community Wiki. I want comparisons, not reputation.

Andrew J. Brehm
  • 1,611
  • 7
  • 34
  • 57
  • Why the close votes? This is a legitimate question that people will be searching for. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 14:42
  • Because IMHO, as the comments on TomTom's answer below should indicate, this is a very subjective and argumentative question and can't be reasonably answered in this type of forum. – GregD Jan 07 '11 at 15:26
  • I found TomTom's answer very objective. And I do think there are objective technical differences between the products to warrant answers. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 15:30
  • I didn't ask which product was "better", I asked for pros and cons. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 15:31
  • @Andrew: TomTom's answer also addresses licensing which is another topic on SF that can't be reasonably answered either: http://serverfault.com/questions/215405/can-you-help-me-with-my-software-licensing-question. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. – GregD Jan 07 '11 at 15:33
  • @Andrew: Ugh. Pros and cons are nothing more than opinions and therefore subjective. – GregD Jan 07 '11 at 15:36
  • @GregD Right. 64 bit Windows can use more than 4 GB of memory. It's a pro but it's not subjective. Similarly different type-1 hypervisors have different pros and cons. Not everything is subjective. Features can be objectively compared. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 17:00
  • @Andrew: While what you state is indeed a fact...whether or not it's a pro or con is open to interpretation, which is subjective. At any rate, I'm not the only one that voted to close this and my opinion isn't the only one that matters. The now 11 comments alone on TomTom's answer is indicative of exactly why I voted to close this question as subjective and argumentative. – GregD Jan 07 '11 at 17:06
  • The 11 comments on TomTom's answer were further questions and clarifications. There was no argument between the participants. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 17:08

1 Answers1

1

Specifically I am wondering whethere there is any sane reason to use Hyper-V

No. Licensing is one (you get free VM licenses with Standard, Enterprise, DataCenter iwindws licenses), but that does not mean yo ucan not still install Hyper-V server adnd keep the papearwork properly. Hardware is currently not a reason - the limits of enterprise edition are pretty high.

TomTom
  • 50,857
  • 7
  • 52
  • 134
  • I haven't seen any really compelling reasons NOT to use hyper-v. Granted I don't live in the Enterprise type of environment. My typical hyper-v deployment is rather small. I've got about 20 or so clients running just a handful of VMs each all on midrange HP Proliant servers. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 14:24
  • Ernie, this was about Hyper-V (built into Windows Server) vs Hyper-V Server (stand-alone product). – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 14:41
  • TomTom, that's what I thought. But you also get the free VM licences with Standard etc. if you use Hyper-V Server instead of the role. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 14:43
  • Exactly. I had the same question part some months ago asking whether there is a reason not to use the free server part from a technical point of view. With R2 there is not - all features are identical, actually with enterprise (in terms of hardware support). So, I never install a windows core for hyper-v role now, always use the hyper-v server (product). – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 14:43
  • @Andrew: No, the hyper-v server does not come with free licenses. BUT - you can still buy the license and assign it (paperwork in lieu). Please point me to other documentation if you have. – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 14:44
  • Ha. Right on Andrew. I see the mixup. Thanks for pointing it out. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 14:44
  • @Andrew - I think TomTom is saying that if you use the hyper-v server/r2 products you DON'T get a free license to run a windows OS, which is correct, but that the free server license comes from your Standard/Enterprise/Datacenter License that you purchased. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 14:51
  • One reason I can think to use the Role vs. Server Product is clustering, I don't think you can cluster the stand alone server product. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 14:54
  • @ErnieTheGeek: Which is simply one thing. Wrong. Clustering was added with R2 of Hyper-V server. – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 15:18
  • TomTom, I didn't say that Hyper-V Server came with free Windows Server licences. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 15:22
  • To summarise: there is no (sane) reason to use the Hyper-V role over the Hyper-V Server product. However, using the Hyper-V Server product the install and logistics are cleaner. – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 15:23
  • In some of my SMB customers I've been using just one server, usually 2008 Standard/R2, as the host and also running the nightly backups through it. I'm running BE 2010 and whatever the specific tape drive for that location happens to be. This isn't my preferred method but it seems to be perfectly functional and not something you could do with just the Hyper-V Server. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 15:34
  • @Ernie That's a good point! I wonder what the recommend method is for backups using Hyper-V Server (or VMware ESXi for that matter). – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 16:19
  • The same as for anything else. It is a server core, so you can install technically anything. Software is not allowed, backup agents ARE allowed. – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 16:58
  • How does the Server Core figure out whether a given piece of software is "software" (i.e. an application) or a backup program? Does it only allow services? – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 17:00
  • I'm fairly certain you can install remote backup agents into the server core. I've loaded some iscsi software into a server core system. – ErnieTheGeek Jan 07 '11 at 18:45
  • It does not. Technically it allows software installs. It has limited features (no IIS etc.). Licensing is normally not controlled by allowing installs. FOr example, legal AND needed, I may need to isntall a java based app (to control my raid controller card - yes, happens, adaptec, thanks). Allowed, legal. It is just a limitaiton not to install production software (applications). No coded in control. – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 18:52
  • Technically - some software may come with stupid limitations, but then this is not something I would love on a hyper-v only. A good backup / control agent will run on server core without requiring additional installed features / roles. – TomTom Jan 07 '11 at 18:52
  • So the parent domain of Hyper-V Server is essentially a Windows Server server core installation? – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 07 '11 at 19:50
  • Yes. One which is stripped of all roles / features not needed, but at the end a normal server core. Best advantage over ESX imho - you still use windows drivers, can use windows tools. Without getting into support hell. This gives you a hell of a hardware base to work with. Granted, some is crappy (i had real problems with some network drivers a year ago), but still it is there. – TomTom Jan 08 '11 at 17:57
  • Good, I have part of my answer. They can close the question now. :-) – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 10 '11 at 10:40