Server 2008R2 as Hyper-V Host

[PGHammer]

Want to get your feet wet with Hyper-V, but don't meet the requirements to run it on the Windows Developer Preview? Fortunately, Windows Server 2008R2 also supports Hyper-V, and is not as strict as the Developer Preview (and the forthcoming Windows 8 client and Server) will be when it comes to this upgraded virtualization - even better, you have six months to test it out.

I downloaded the 180-day evaluation version of Server 2008 R2 from Microsoft and burned it to DVD. I then installed it onto a *scratch* 40 GB IDE HDD completely separated from my 7 x64 and Developer Preview x64 HDDs (both of which are SATA). Even better, the Server boot manager recognized both operating systems, letting me triple.

I installed Server 2008 R2 Standard Full Server and added the Hyper-V role. Unlike the WDP, second-level address translation is not a requirement; also, 4 GB of system RAM isn't required either (a good thing, as I have but 3 GB currently). Other than those two non-requirements, this is still Hyper-V, and is otherwise identical to that in the Developer Preview (understandable; this is, after all, where the Hyper-V suport in the Developer Preview and the forthcoming Windows 8 is sourced from). Right now, I'm doing the install of my first Hyper-V client, the WDP ISO (in fact, the same ISO I used to create my bare-metal install). Like Hyper-V in the WDP, x64 Windows OSes are supported (specifically, Vista x64 RTM and later). You can devote as few as a single CPU core to a VM, but you won't want to devote more than half your *real* CPU cores to a specific virtual machine (any more than you would with any other VM solution). Styill, this makes for a nice way to get your feet wet with Hyper-V.

[BeerFan]

"you have six months to test it out."

Uhhh, what? Hyper-V is a part of server 08 by default. You don't need to do anything special to test it out, other than set it up. Whacko post is whacko. I have had 4 VM's running via hyper-v on server 08 for several months.

[PGHammer]

"you have six months to test it out."

Uhhh, what???Hyper-V is a part of server 08 by default.??You don't need to do anything special to test it out, other than set it up.??Whacko post is whacko.??I have had 4 VM's running via hyper-v on server 08 for several months.

I was referring to the 180-day evaluation period for Windows Server 2008R2 itself (not the Hyper-V add-on). Apparently you did NOT notice that I stated quite plainly that I downloaded the evaluation version of 2008R2.

[BeerFan]

Are you serious? There is no Hyper-V "ADD-ON" It's part of the OS.

And, the entire tone of your initial post was, "hey look at this new thing i discovered." All I'm saying is that Hyper-V is a standard. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Windows 8 Dev Prev.

"Want to get your feet wet with Hyper-V, but don't meet the requirements to run it on the Windows Developer Preview?" What????

[remixedcat]

Hyper-v is a server 2008 R2 role that needs to be installed seperately. It's not enabled or installed by default.

Also I recommend, for better performance running a bare metal hypervisor such as vmware vsphere/esxi instead or just installing server 2008 core with hyper-v and requisites only.

[+BudMan MVC]

"second-level address translation is not a requirement"

What?

[Ace]

Hyper-V on Windows Server 8 won't require SLAT

Client Hyper-V on Win 8 Client will require 64-bit SLAT capable systems.

Windows Server 8 Hyper-V does not require SLAT so your servers running WS2008 R2 will run WS8 Hyper-V just fine (note: WS2008 R2 RemoteFx does require SLAT and that will remain the same for WS8)

Although it would be great to not require SLAT on clients for Client Hyper-V ... the client scenarios almost always requires the root Windows (parent partition) to have a high performance graphical experience where for servers the guidance is to only use root Windows for administration / management.

[+BudMan MVC]

Curious what current CPU's don't support it anyway?

C:\Windows\system32>coreinfo -v

Coreinfo v3.02 - Dump information on system CPU and memory topology

Copyright © 2008-2011 Mark Russinovich

Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

Intel® Core i5-2300 CPU @ 2.80GHz

Intel64 Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel

HYPERVISOR - Hypervisor is present

VMX * Supports Intel hardware-assisted virtualization

EPT * Supports Intel extended page tables (SLAT)

[PGHammer]

Hyper-v is a server 2008 R2 role that needs to be installed seperately. It's not enabled or installed by default.

Also I recommend, for better performance running a bare metal hypervisor such as vmware vsphere/esxi instead or just installing server 2008 core with hyper-v and requisites only.

If you were evaluating it as a *server* product, I'd agree. However, most virtualization these days is at the desktop, not server, level.

No LGA775 CPU supports SLAT/EPT; they support the other tickboxes required - just not that one.

Further, none of the Developer Preview images available from Microsoft today is Windows 8 Server - the three images are all Windows 8 client (which requires SLAT for the Hyper-V role).

LGA1155 - except for the lower-end CPUs (PentiumG850 is the lowest CPU that supports EPT/SLAT commonly available for the desktop), the CPUs above this in the i-series all support it.

Until a public/developer preview of Windows 8 Server becomes available, if you don't have EPT/SLAT support, 2008 R2 (and the Hyper-V role) is the only option you have for testing Hyper-V in anything remotely like a desktop environment. I posted the thread here because, despite I'm referring more to using 2008 R2 as a desktop OS, 2008 R2 isn't a desktop OS in reality.

[Midge]

ill stick to xenserver, does the job :)

[remixedcat]

If you were evaluating it as a *server* product, I'd agree. However, most virtualization these days is at the desktop, not server, level.

Nope... vmware esxi/vsphere is a bare metal hypervisor that does not need an underlying operating system. This is used in the cloud computing and virtual private server hosting industry. That is enterprise virtualization. a whole 'nother castle.

virtualization is the key to getting on the cloud. but you need more then just hypervisors to get on the cloud.....

with hyper-v there is a way to have it sorta "bare metal" however it still needs the underlying windows 2008 R2.

and if you have a full copy of 2008 R2 installed and then run hyper-v on top of that you degrade the performance of the hypervisors with the overhead of the underlying operating system. Thus, why datacenters run bare metal hypervisors.

also running the full OS underneath increases the attack footprint as well. Thus, when you do have a server of any type, NEVER INSTALL CONSUMER DESKTOP SOFTWARE! Especially running internet explorer or windows media player. Exploits in those can bring your hyper-v setup down.

[PGHammer]

Nope... vmware esxi/vsphere is a bare metal hypervisor that does not need an underlying operating system. This is used in the cloud computing and virtual private server hosting industry. That is enterprise virtualization. a whole 'nother castle.

virtualization is the key to getting on the cloud. but you need more then just hypervisors to get on the cloud.....

with hyper-v there is a way to have it sorta "bare metal" however it still needs the underlying windows 2008 R2.

and if you have a full copy of 2008 R2 installed and then run hyper-v on top of that you degrade the performance of the hypervisors with the overhead of the underlying operating system. Thus, why datacenters run bare metal hypervisors.

also running the full OS underneath increases the attack footprint as well. Thus, when you do have a server of any type, NEVER INSTALL CONSUMER DESKTOP SOFTWARE! Especially running internet explorer or windows media player. Exploits in those can bring your hyper-v setup down.

That is indeed the problem with most hypervisors (and, until now, I'd include Hyper-V among them) - they are hyperniche/specialized for that role, and no other.

Hyper-V will be one of only two hypervisors (Xen being the other) to even attempt to break out of that niche, and we know exactly how much success Xen has had as a VM host outside of the hypervisor role.

As much as I appreciate VMware as a desktop virtual machine solution, the cost per client makes it a rather expensive proposition for any SMB.

My evaluation of Hyper-V is for the SMB/home office - not enterprise - VM lab/management role (specifically, non-dedicated or semi-dedicated hosting of VMs).

Hyper-V can accept VMs created in any number of clients (or locally) as long as the VM meets three criteria -

1. The hard drive is in the "generic" VHD format.

2. The guest OS is supported by Hyper-V.

3. No third-party guest-integration features are installed.

The three criteria are identical not only with Hyper-V, but the importation of VMs into any competing hypervisor (even vSphere).

Another reason I chose Windows 8 Server/2008 R2 SP1 as the evaluation focus is to evaluate the Hyper-V VM-creation methods. Without SLAT, you can't create, let alone manage, Hyper-V-based VMs in Windows 8 client (unless you create and run them in VirtualBox or VMware - both of which try to steer you away from creating a generic VM suitable for export into Hyper-V). Absent a public evaluation version of Windows 8 Server, Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 is the only option for evaluation of Hyper-V - not merely as a server solution, but even as a generic host - if you don't have hardware support for SLAT. Is 2008 R2 SP1 the best option? Nope - and you yourself stated why. However, for now, it's the only public option.

[majortom1981]

Hyper-v is a server 2008 R2 role that needs to be installed seperately. It's not enabled or installed by default.

Also I recommend, for better performance running a bare metal hypervisor such as vmware vsphere/esxi instead or just installing server 2008 core with hyper-v and requisites only.

Microsoft has a free hyper-v based server also , Microsoft? Hyper-V? Server 2008 R2. Its similiar to Vmware in that its only hyper-v not the full operating system.

So you are also wrong about it being a role that has to be installed sperately. You can also install hyper-v server 2008r2 and just have hyper-v server.

[sc302 Veteran]

Please explaint the cost per client to me. As a vmware vendor to get into the new 5.0 it is 500 per server half the cost os a ms windows standard license. You need to run enterprise to gave more than 2 guest oses per microsoft licensing so that is a 5000 hit. For 5000 you can support 2 hosts servers and a san vs 1 ms os license. Please explain where ms cost is less.

[majortom1981]

Please explaint the cost per client to me. As a vmware vendor to get into the new 5.0 it is 500 per server half the cost os a ms windows standard license. You need to run enterprise to gave more than 2 guest oses per microsoft licensing so that is a 5000 hit. For 5000 you can support 2 hosts servers and a san vs 1 ms os license. Please explain where ms cost is less.

Thats not true. If you run HYper-v server you have unlimited licenses. You just need a license for every windows virtual machine you run. You are also forgetting that with the others you have to have a MS license for every OS you Run.

With FULL versions of 2008 r2 enterprise includes the 2 licenses for the OS itself. That means you dont have to buy the 2 OS licenses . With vmware you would still need the 2 OS licenses for windows.

[Midge]

Please explaint the cost per client to me. As a vmware vendor to get into the new 5.0 it is 500 per server half the cost os a ms windows standard license. You need to run enterprise to gave more than 2 guest oses per microsoft licensing so that is a 5000 hit. For 5000 you can support 2 hosts servers and a san vs 1 ms os license. Please explain where ms cost is less.

i work in education, make that ?160 :D (last time i checked)

[PGHammer]

Hyper-v is a server 2008 R2 role that needs to be installed seperately. It's not enabled or installed by default.

Also I recommend, for better performance running a bare metal hypervisor such as vmware vsphere/esxi instead or just installing server 2008 core with hyper-v and requisites only.

The only reason I did a full install (instead of just the Core) is out of caution (I was unaware that there was a Hyper-V *role* - which would let me start with just a core install of either server OS; I have since replaced 2008 R2 with Server 8) and unfamiliarity.

Lastly, performance isn't an issue at this point, as I am merely evaluating the creation and local-management aspects of Hyper-V as a local/SMB alternative to Xen/VMware (primarily to Xen, as VMware is unsuitable for reasons of cost for SMBs). The primary reason for the inclusion of Hyper-V is that it is Windows-based, and, with Windows 8, migrates to the clients (for creation) - 2008 R2 and Server 8 can function as standalone Hyper-V servers.

Your points are indeed valid - I'm just not at that point in the evaluation process yet.

[sc302 Veteran]

Isn't that 1p and 1v, right? Not 2 p's.

Per the ms license agreement of course.

[majortom1981]

i work in education, make that ?160 :D (last time i checked)

If your a non-profit in the US you can get datacenter for $144 via techsoup also.

Also Sc302. Each version of server includes different amounts of virtual licenses. Windows 2008 r2 standard is 1 virtual machine ,enterprise is 4 virtual machines, datacenter is unlimited.

[sc302 Veteran]

Please understand less than 2% of vmware is done in the cli. Most everything is gui.

I think ms did away with their free version. I see an option to try and buy on the ms site.

[majortom1981]

Please understand less than 2% of vmware is done in the cli. Most everything is gui.

I think ms did away with their free version. I see an option to try and buy on the ms site.

Nope, they still have it. here is the download link

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=3512

[Midge]

If your a non-profit in the US you can get datacenter for $144 via techsoup also.

Also Sc302. Each version of server includes different amounts of virtual licenses. Windows 2008 r2 standard is 1 virtual machine ,enterprise is 4 virtual machines, datacenter is unlimited.

thats why i use xenserver, licencing is easy - FREE, if you want extras like the dynamic memory pay licence.

but for what i need it for small servers/development/testing it suits me perfectly on the free edition, i have a HP Proliant DL380G6 Dual 2.4ghz quad core xeon proccessors with 16gb ram :) and have never had issues with it in the year it has been online

[PGHammer]

i work in education, make that ?160 :D (last time i checked)

I was also referring to the cost of Workstation licenses (to create the VMs in question). Or do you get so many Workstation licenses per vSphere license?

WIth both Hyper-V and Xen, there is no cost whatever for VM creation, as you can use existing freeware VM-creation tools to create Xen/Hyper-V VMs.

With Hyper-V, the per-seat licensing applies to everything run off that server; there is no additional cost for Hyper-V.

If you are talking about licensing costs, those are applicable no matter what VM solution you use (VMware, Xen, or Hyper-V) - you still have to have valid CALs for the VMs.

And I am referring to fewer than 50 clients (usually, quite a bit fewer, like fifteen or less).

And I was aware of Hyper-V Server (which would be the likely dedicated host of choice, due to the lack of cost, for Hyper-V-based VMs) - the very reason I didn't download it is its lack of tools for VM creation.

[majortom1981]

thats why i use xenserver, licencing is easy - FREE, if you want extras like the dynamic memory pay licence.

but for what i need it for small servers/development/testing it suits me perfectly on the free edition, i have a HP Proliant DL380G6 Dual 2.4ghz quad core xeon proccessors with 16gb ram :) and have never had issues with it in the year it has been online

If all your doing is linux virtual machine licences then yes its free BUT if you virtualise ANY windows server you have to have a license for that copy. if you have a lot of windows 2008 r2 virtual machines then running them on say datacenter will be cheaper in the long run because datacenter includes the licenses for the virtual machines.

[Midge]

I was also referring to the cost of Workstation licenses (to create the VMs in question). Or do you get so many Workstation licenses per vSphere license?

WIth both Hyper-V and Xen, there is no cost whatever for VM creation, as you can use existing freeware VM-creation tools to create Xen/Hyper-V VMs.

With Hyper-V, the per-seat licensing applies to everything run off that server; there is no additional cost for Hyper-V.

If you are talking about licensing costs, those are applicable no matter what VM solution you use (VMware, Xen, or Hyper-V) - you still have to have valid CALs for the VMs.

And I am referring to fewer than 50 clients (usually, quite a bit fewer, like fifteen or less).

i was looking into full desktop virtualisation a few months back, and this is what stopped me persuing it now, hidden licences, and microsofts stupid VDI licencing to pretty much eat any savings you could make up