06-06-2019, 04:46 AM
When looking into the world of virtualization, you'll come across two primary options from Microsoft: Hyper-V on Windows Server and Hyper-V Server. While they might sound similar, they cater to different needs and come with their own features.
First, let's talk about what Hyper-V on Windows Server offers. Essentially, it’s a role that you can install on Windows Server. This means that you get not only the virtualization capabilities but also access to a full raft of features like Active Directory, file storage services, and a host of other Windows Server features. If you're already working in a Windows Server environment and need virtualization, it’s like getting a bonus package without having to set up a separate operating system.
On the flip side, we have Hyper-V Server. This is a free, standalone product designed specifically for virtualization. It’s a hypervisor optimized purely for running virtual machines. It doesn't come with all the extras like the full Windows Server, which can be an advantage if you want to keep things light and focused solely on virtualization. However, that also means if you need additional features or server roles, you’ll have to run them elsewhere, which can complicate your setup a bit.
Another significant difference lies in management and user experience. With Hyper-V on Windows Server, you get the familiar GUI and management tools that are part of Windows Server, which can be super helpful for those who prefer a graphical interface. Hyper-V Server, on the other hand, can feel a bit more barebones. It traditionally requires some command-line skills to get things done, although you can manage it through a separate Windows machine using tools like System Center or the Hyper-V Manager remote console.
Licensing is also a point to consider. Hyper-V Server is free, which is fantastic for small businesses or labs where budget is tight. But remember, because it doesn’t come bundled with that full array of Windows Server services, if you need those services later, you’ll need to figure in the licensing costs for a full Windows Server.
Performance-wise, there’s generally no difference under the hood. Both versions offer similar performance for running your VMs—they both rely on the same hypervisor technology. However, the additional features available in Windows Server might mean that you can make better use of resources in certain scenarios, depending on your needs.
In practice, the choice between the two often comes down to your specific requirements and existing infrastructure. If you’re all in on Windows Server already and want the integration, going with Hyper-V on Windows Server makes a lot of sense. But if you’re looking for a lean, focused solution just for virtualization, or if you’re just dipping your toes into virtualization, Hyper-V Server could be the way to go and save some cash in the process.
I hope my post was useful. Are you new to Hyper-V and do you have a good Hyper-V backup solution? See my other post
First, let's talk about what Hyper-V on Windows Server offers. Essentially, it’s a role that you can install on Windows Server. This means that you get not only the virtualization capabilities but also access to a full raft of features like Active Directory, file storage services, and a host of other Windows Server features. If you're already working in a Windows Server environment and need virtualization, it’s like getting a bonus package without having to set up a separate operating system.
On the flip side, we have Hyper-V Server. This is a free, standalone product designed specifically for virtualization. It’s a hypervisor optimized purely for running virtual machines. It doesn't come with all the extras like the full Windows Server, which can be an advantage if you want to keep things light and focused solely on virtualization. However, that also means if you need additional features or server roles, you’ll have to run them elsewhere, which can complicate your setup a bit.
Another significant difference lies in management and user experience. With Hyper-V on Windows Server, you get the familiar GUI and management tools that are part of Windows Server, which can be super helpful for those who prefer a graphical interface. Hyper-V Server, on the other hand, can feel a bit more barebones. It traditionally requires some command-line skills to get things done, although you can manage it through a separate Windows machine using tools like System Center or the Hyper-V Manager remote console.
Licensing is also a point to consider. Hyper-V Server is free, which is fantastic for small businesses or labs where budget is tight. But remember, because it doesn’t come bundled with that full array of Windows Server services, if you need those services later, you’ll need to figure in the licensing costs for a full Windows Server.
Performance-wise, there’s generally no difference under the hood. Both versions offer similar performance for running your VMs—they both rely on the same hypervisor technology. However, the additional features available in Windows Server might mean that you can make better use of resources in certain scenarios, depending on your needs.
In practice, the choice between the two often comes down to your specific requirements and existing infrastructure. If you’re all in on Windows Server already and want the integration, going with Hyper-V on Windows Server makes a lot of sense. But if you’re looking for a lean, focused solution just for virtualization, or if you’re just dipping your toes into virtualization, Hyper-V Server could be the way to go and save some cash in the process.
I hope my post was useful. Are you new to Hyper-V and do you have a good Hyper-V backup solution? See my other post
