Use Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition as Virtualisation Host

Posted on

Use Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition as Virtualisation Host – Managing your servers can streamline the performance of your team by allowing them to complete complex tasks faster. Plus, it can enable them to detect problems early on before they get out of hand and compromise your business. As a result, the risk of experiencing operational setbacks is drastically lower.

But the only way to make the most of your server management is to perform it correctly. And to help you do so, this article will share nine tips on improving your server management and fix some problem about virtualization, hyper-v, windows-server-2012, windows, hyper-v-server-2012.

Would it be reasonable to run the Standard Server 2012 Edition (as opposed to Hyper-V edition) as a virtualisation host? Obviously there is a performance penalty but I guess it’s not that bad – are there other disadvantages?

Background

We want to run a simple setup consisting of a physical server with a couple of VMs, one for Exchange and one for Sharepoint. The users are all remote, not on the domain (it’s like having a hosted Exchange and SharePoint service).

We’re considering which virtualisation technology to use. As a non-profit organisation, it’s important to us that our setup be simple to manage and that it be easy to bring in network admins that maybe aren’t that experienced.

One of our guys set up Server 2008 core a while ago and found it was a nightmare – the command line is not familiar for a unix guy and management is a right pain if you’re not on the domain, which we’re not. So we asked ourselves, if we go with Windows (not yet decided), why not just pay a slight performance penalty and run the Standard Edition as the host? The loss in performance in our case is probably worth it as a trade-off for the ease of use. But one of our guys said that this should be avoided and he would never recommend it as the industry standard is VMWare ESXi, Citrix Xen or Hyper-V.

Is using the Standard 2012 edition as a host OS reasonable?

Solution :

Obviously there is a performance penalty

Hah? Where is this magically supposed to come from? Hyper-V host is a Standard Core with some services not available for install. The different licensing paperwork will not magically make it faster.

One of our guys set up Server 2008 core a while ago

Hope it was a LONG time ago as this is a technology CURRENTLY 2 generations behind (2008 R2, 2012) and SOON (like next month) 3 generations behind. Now I know some organizations want to run REALLY outdated stuff – maybe he should try windows 95 or DOS as host 😉

found it was a nightmare – the command line is not familiar for a unix guy and management is > a right pain

Because you are not supposed to use it. Hyper-V host is pretty much for people running larger setups where the admin tools run on another computer.

It is technically 100% identically to a similar configured Server Core.

But one of our guys said that this should be avoided and he would never recommend it as
the industry standard is VMWare ESXi, Citrix Xen or Hyper-V.

He is one of those people that should be fired. Incompetence showing it’s ugly head. On the spot. He seems not to undersand that Hyper-V is the technology – not the server product. There are some advantages to run Hyper-V server (notably: more memory) but you ahve to handle licensing separately (wont go into it).

Anyhow, Hyper-V refers to Hyper-V – no difference between Hyper-V server and the WIndows Server Hyper-V role.

It is totally reasonable to run WIndows Server as host. Has many advantages – especially in smaller setups where you really like having a UI around on your (only?) host.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.