Hyper-V slower on W2K8 full install versus core install?


i'm looking use hyper-v small home server i'm not concerned stability (compared corporate environment).  main concern speed , data integrity.

here options hyper-v install:
1) hyper-v server 2008 r2
2) windows server 2008 r2 (full) w/hyper-v role
3) windows server 2008 r2 (core) w/hyper-v role

"main" purpose (or virtual machine) of computer serve files raid-6 array.

manage raid 6 using application called lsi megaraid monitors array status , sends e-mail alerts if happens.  think needs direct hardware access i'm guessing needs installed on parent partition means must install w2k8 full install.

know that?

w2k8 full install best choice?

mentioned, i'm not concerned larger "attack surface" (re: stability).  i'd rather sacrifice bit of stability ease of management speed main concern.

hi,

 

i recommend use full installation, hyper-v server , core installation don’t have gui, it’s inconvenient administrate , manage computer. following post discussed similar issue, can refer to:

 

hyper-v : best way install it

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en/winservercore/thread/06231912-bbdd-4db8-bc33-d2b63705cd80

 

 

best regards,

vincent hu

 



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