When NOT to use Hyper-V for a server install?
are there instances--assuming basic cpu hw support vms exists--that wouldn't want install windows server 2016 virtualized? i'm thinking in particular of small businesses buy low-end servers (mid-range xeon, 8gb) , aren't going buy beefy server of sort 1 sees typically spec'd out best support virtualization. file, print, database, , not else. i'm thinking of complication comes hyper-v compared straight install, along reduced performance when can't throw lot of resources @ it. in terms of disaster recovery, windows server (like windows 10) amazingly when 1 piece of hardware--say, hd--dies , needs replaced , restored backup, hw independence of vm realistically isn't of advantage here. how see it? hi sir, >> a hd--dies , needs replaced , restored backup, hw independence of vm realistically isn't of advantage here. generally , may consider data security hyper-v virtualization . there several solutions here , such fc, iscsi, sofs ,...