VMRC equivalent for Hyper-V?

Question

VMRC was the client tool used to connect to virtual machines running on Virtual Server.

Upgrading to Windows Server 2008 R2 with the Hyper-V role, i need a way for people to be able to use the virtual machines.

Note:

not all virtual machines will have network connectivity
not all virtual machines will be running Windows
some people needing to connect to a virtual machine will be running Windows XP
Hyper-V manager, allowing management of the hyper-v server, is less desirable (since it allows management of the hyper-v server (and doesn't work on all operating systems))

What is the Windows Server 2008 R2 equivalent of VMRC; to "vnc" to a virtual server?

Update: i think Tatas was suggesting Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager Self-Service Portal 2.0 (?):

enter image description here

Which requires

SQL Server
IIS

Installing those would unfortunately violate our Windows Server 2008 R2 license. i might be looking at the wrong product link, since commenter said there is a version that doesn't require "System Center".

Update 2: The Windows Server 2008 R2 running HyperV is being licensed with the understanding that it only be used to host HyperV. From the Windows Server 2008 R2 Licensing FAQ:

Q. If I have one license for Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard and want to run it in a virtual operating system environment, can I continue running it in the physical operating system environment?

A. Yes, with Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard, you may run one instance in the physical operating system environment and one instance in the virtual operating system environment; however, the instance running in the physical operating system environment may be used only to run hardware virtualization software, provide hardware virtualization services, or to run software to manage and service operating system environments on the licensed server.

This is why i'm weary about installing IIS or SQL Server.

They might be related, but how are they relevant? Why are they here? — Chris S, Jun 29 '11 at 13:35
This is a Q&A site. You ask a question, people provide answers. If you need to link to another page to form a complete Question that would make sense. You have provided links to redundant questions, I don't see where any of them add any value to your initial question. It doesn't matter if you are the only person with this problem, or if there are millions of people; it doesn't change the question. The related questions on the right are other separate (non-duplicate) questions, not the same question posted on a bunch of different websites. — Chris S, Jun 29 '11 at 13:48
@Chris S: The *See also* questions are not duplicates of this question. They are *related* links that ask similar questions, or a question with different reasons than mine - which might necessarily lead to a different solution. Someone here might also be able to read them and find a solution in them where i did not. In the end it seems you just don't like them there. That is your opinion, and you're free to have it. — Ian Boyd, Jun 29 '11 at 14:10
"Windows Server 2008 R2 is being licensed with the understanding that it only be used to run Hyper-V" - How?! MS would not grant a license like that. — Chris S, Jun 29 '11 at 14:15
That seems to very clearly allow IIS and SQL Express to "manage and service operating system environments on the licensed server". — Chris S, Jun 29 '11 at 14:27
If you have more than one question, ask more than one question. You shouldn't keep editing your original question and changing the meaning. You have over 1k rep, you should know better. Also, those links are related, but entirely irrelevant. The point of SF is that you ask a question and get an answer. There's no need for them and they just make the question harder to read. — MDMarra, Jun 29 '11 at 14:37
This looks like something you need to take up with your MSFT rep, as this sounds like a licensing issue, and not a technical issue. — Holocryptic, Jun 29 '11 at 14:39
I'm going to have to ask you both to take a break from this question for a while as you're not being constructive. When you come back can you clean up the question and comments before adding anything else. If you don't I'll delete the question. — Chopper3, Jun 29 '11 at 15:13

score 4 · Accepted Answer · answered Jun 28 '11 at 19:43

4

The short answer is SCVMM.

It's a product Microsoft makes for expanded management of Hyper-V VMs, however it has a very nice web portal that can have permissions delegated down to the individual VM level if desired. Start, restart, pause, and Snapshot are some of the capabilities that can be delegated. The one you're most concerned about is Console access through RDC and it can be allowed through the web portal as well.

answered Jun 28 '11 at 19:43

Tatas

2,091
1
13
19

1

You don't need full System Center, just the "VMM" part. It is sold stand-alone, though if you already have System Center, it just adds itself right in. – Nate Jun 28 '11 at 19:50
Where is just the *"VMM part"*? – Ian Boyd Jun 29 '11 at 13:33
[SCVMM Pricing and Licensing](http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/en/us/virtual-machine-manager/vmm-pricing-licensing.aspx) – Chris S Jun 29 '11 at 13:51
Just so i know i have the correct product: the Hyper-V equivalent of VRMC is $869? How does that relate to "Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager Self-Service Portal 2.0" - which i was able to freely download? – Ian Boyd Jun 29 '11 at 14:12
SSP requires SCVMM, which is why it's free. You only need the SCVMM AC to install SSP, but it needs a SCVMM Server to do the actual legwork. MS changed their profit model. They give Hyper-V Server away for free then charge you for the management functionality. In the past Virtual Server was the licensed product and the management tools were free (VRMC got grandfathered in when VS2005 became free). – Chris S Jun 29 '11 at 14:36
Also, the Workgroup license is only $505 and includes CALs for 5 Hyper-V hosts. Virtual Server 2005 was $499 for the standard version and double that for the enterprise version; for comparison. – Chris S Jun 29 '11 at 14:51
@Chris S: $505 dollars might be an option. Although i'd rather not have to spend money in order to see if it is suitable. – Ian Boyd Jun 29 '11 at 14:53
2

Check and see if there's an eval copy. MS usually provides something like that these days. Also, if you have an MSDN subscription you can always use that for testing. On the bright side, MS's virtual solution is still a whole lot cheaper than VMware. – Tatas Jun 29 '11 at 15:43

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 29 '11 at 15:00

An answer that might help other people (but doesn't answer my question) is vmconnect:

vmconnect.exe servername "Virtual Machine Name"

e.g.

>vmconnect.exe DeathStar "Han"

The advantages of this are:

users can browse to a share on the HyperV server machine and see all virtual machines

enter image description here

there is zero client-install required (vmconnect.exe is located on the server)

The disadvantages of this are:

you have to manually create a shortcut file for each new virtual machine
there is no way to see the state, or turn on, virtual machines
vmconnect.exe is a 64-bit application, and crashes on 32-bit editions of Windows

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 29 '11 at 17:49

You can download the Remote Server Administration Toolkit which will put all the VM management tools that are in Windows Server (not SCVMM) into Windows Client. Here's the current link:

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=7887

The usual complaint about this is that you need to match the version of server on client. I.e. if your server is Windows Server 2008, you need to use Windows Vista or another Windows Server 2008 to manage it. If your server is Windows Server 2008 R2, then you use Windows 7 or another Windows Server 2008 R2 to manage it.

VMRC equivalent for Hyper-V?

See also

3 Answers3