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
Post a Comment