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.
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
vincent hu
Windows Server > Hyper-V
Comments
Post a Comment