Microsoft shows off early version of Windows Server 8

While consumers and many businesses might be interested to learn more about Microsoft's plans for the upcoming Windows 8 operating system, enterprise administrators are also likely to be interested in learning more about the Windows Server 8 OS.

ZDNet.com reports that during Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference today the company gave attendees the first real look at what Windows Server 8 has to offer. Both Windows 8 and Windows Server 8 should be released around the same time.

The article states that one of the new features in Windows Server 8 will be Hyper-V Replica. This new feature will allow for "asynchronous virtual machine replication." In English, that means that users of the operating system will be able to "replicate their mission-critical database to an offsite data vendor." Microsoft says that it will allow a number of third party "storage, datacenter and software/service providers" to use this new feature, which is usually provided by third party software. It also won't charge any additional Windows Server 8 license fees if server operators want to replicate the OS via a virtual machine. Microsoft also stated that Hyper-V Replica will allow for over 16 virtual processors to be run per machine.

The Hyper-V Replica is just one of over 100 new features that Microsoft claims will be included in Windows Server 8. More info on the server OS is expected to be revealed in September during Microsoft's Build conference. Windows Server 8 is expected to be released in its final form sometime in 2012 alongside its consumer and business counterpart Windows 8.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

EA confirms purchase of PopCap Games for $750 million

Next Story

HTC: Apple should stop suing, start competing

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

i dont think it's new. vss snapshot backup restore can be done since xp/server 2003. Hyper-V Replica does more than that?

leo221 said,
i dont think it's new. vss snapshot backup restore can be done since xp/server 2003. Hyper-V Replica does more than that?

Not snapshots, it's realtime replication.

TruckWEB said,
So we have Windows Server 2008 R2 and the next release is going to be Windows Server 8 ??

Probably going to be Windows Server 2012 to stay consistant with SQL 2012.

TruckWEB said,
So we have Windows Server 2008 R2 and the next release is going to be Windows Server 8 ??

Windows Server 8 is a codename, if it's the name you're fussed about.

briangw said,

Probably going to be Windows Server 2012 to stay consistant with SQL 2012.

Ya, this name is probably what we should all expect.

hmm interesting .Did not expect this, windows server 2003 was not updated until 2008 ver roughly 5 years.It seems Microsoft is tring to speed up its development of software in order to keep up with new technologies.
Lets see!

Varoon said,
hmm interesting .Did not expect this, windows server 2003 was not updated until 2008 ver roughly 5 years.It seems Microsoft is tring to speed up its development of software in order to keep up with new technologies.
Lets see!

I think its probably to bring the product more inline with there mega-push to the cloud. I'm not sure if you've heard but they're "all in" it now

Varoon said,
hmm interesting .Did not expect this, windows server 2003 was not updated until 2008 ver roughly 5 years.It seems Microsoft is tring to speed up its development of software in order to keep up with new technologies.
Lets see!

Ummm, Windows 2003 Server R2 was released almost 2 years after 2003 Server R1 was released - considering the the the vast majority of people who use Windows Server are on a licensing contract, they automatically receive the latest upgrades without having to pay extra. What one is seeing with Microsoft is shorter release cycles and incremental updates - something one can do when the model is a subscription which allows people to evolve their setup gradually rather than massive leaps from one product up to another ever 3-4 years.

Hum this sounds very, VERY interesting. A very dynamic, versatible, able-to-do-a-crapload of things server OS.
Can't wait to see the final thing.

MidnightDevil said,
Hum this sounds very, VERY interesting. A very dynamic, versatible, able-to-do-a-crapload of things server OS.
Can't wait to see the final thing.

Some people would argue that having a single OS that performs a multitude of tasks isn't a good idea, as it can introduce bloat and inefficiency in a speed critical environment.

Majesticmerc said,

Some people would argue that having a single OS that performs a multitude of tasks isn't a good idea, as it can introduce bloat and inefficiency in a speed critical environment.

It only becomes a problem if people are forced to install and run it all the time even when they don't need it - from what one has seen from Microsoft over the last couple of years it will be offered as an optional installation along with other features in the stack.

Majesticmerc said,

Some people would argue that having a single OS that performs a multitude of tasks isn't a good idea, as it can introduce bloat and inefficiency in a speed critical environment.


That's why you have the option to choose which features you want when you start it up for the first time. Check out the latest Server builds.
This sounds like a cheaper cloud replication system for small networks to me!

Majesticmerc said,

Some people would argue that having a single OS that performs a multitude of tasks isn't a good idea, as it can introduce bloat and inefficiency in a speed critical environment.

There are good arguments for this, but I could also argue than an integrated Server is faster than shoving data around to several servers and coordinating them.

And then someone could argue reliability in putting all the servers/services on a single server, and I could argue that this is what failover and clustering with even a single redudant server would circumvent.

This has been an long and on going debate, and the real answer?

It depends on the customer and their needs and the types of things they are using the servers to do.

The interesting part you are skipping over, is that there is no reason a customer couldn't simply deploy multiple Windows Servers, and not run everything on one OS too. In fact, Microsoft used to push any serious data centers to have MSSQL on its own dedicated Windows Server, etc...

Just because Windows is capable of shoving a ton of crap on one server and doing it rather welll doesn't mean it has to be used that way, and can be staged and fragmented in any way possible based on a clients needs, and iwth proper licensing, not much cost difference either.

In a way this reminds me of the early NT days when bringing a full scale application server at reasonable costs to anyone was revolutionary, and Novell's response was to try to peddle their limited API set for server applications on 3.x and then dismiss NT because it put too much responsibility on one Server OS. Novell was not right, and they should have been doing what UNIX had known for years, that a server is more than files/printers/faxes.

(Your argument is one that I have been on both sides of at times supporting the user of Windows Server and recommending simple single operation rack servers. So don't think I am saying this is a bad argument in any way.)