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 ,jbod .

in windows server 2016 , brought s2d , doesn't rely on separate storage storing vm files . use local attached disk build cluster achieve high availability storage .

but if going build file,print,database server , , disk raid cover needs ,  then may consider straight installation on physical server . 

best regards,

elton


please remember mark replies answers if help.
if have feedback technet subscriber support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.



Windows Server  >  Hyper-V



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

some help on Event 540

WMI Repository 4GB limit - Win 2003 Ent Question

Event ID 1302 (error 1307) DFS replication service encountered an error while writing to the debug log file