06-11-2020, 11:34 PM
When you're looking into the world of virtualization, especially within the Microsoft ecosystem, it’s easy to get a bit tangled up in terms of licensing—especially when it comes to Hyper-V Server compared to Windows Server with Hyper-V. So, let’s break this down without turning it into a dry lecture.
First off, Hyper-V Server is essentially a free stand-alone hypervisor. It's got what you need to run virtual machines, but it doesn't come with the extra features that you’d find packaged in Windows Server. This means that if you’re just looking to set up some VMs and keep things light, Hyper-V Server is pretty appealing. You’re not paying for any additional features or licensing that might include things you won't use, which can help keep costs down.
Now, Windows Server with Hyper-V is a different story. When you deploy this, you’re investing in the full Windows Server OS, and with that, you get a comprehensive suite of features. Licensing here gets a little more complex. With Windows Server, you're not just getting Hyper-V; you're also getting access to all the Windows Server functionalities—active directory services, file and storage services, and a lot more. So, if your projects require those additional services, then investing in Windows Server makes sense.
The licensing model for Windows Server also involves core counts. You have to license a minimum of 16 cores, and if you plan to run VMs, you’ll be bound to how many VMs you can deploy based on those licenses. Essentially, every physical core has to be accounted for, and this can stack up cost-wise, especially for larger setups.
On the flip side, with Hyper-V Server, things might seem simpler. You download it, install it, and you're off to the races, but don't get too comfortable. If you want to keep everything running smoothly and securely, you'll potentially want to pair it with something like Windows Server for management and additional tooling, which brings back some of those licensing considerations.
One big difference to note is support and updates. With Windows Server, you're entitled to Microsoft’s full support, updates, and patches as part of your license. This means you’ll always have the latest security features and fixes. With Hyper-V Server, although it’s still a Microsoft product, you may need to rely more on community support or third-party solutions for things like backups or additional enterprise features.
In a nutshell, if you’re looking at setting up a straightforward hypervisor with no frills and you want to keep costs minimal, Hyper-V Server is a solid choice. But if you find that you need the broader capabilities and features that Windows Server offers, plus official support, then that investment can pay off down the line, especially in a production environment. Choosing the right one really hinges on what you need for your specifics projects and how much complexity you're willing to manage.
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 off, Hyper-V Server is essentially a free stand-alone hypervisor. It's got what you need to run virtual machines, but it doesn't come with the extra features that you’d find packaged in Windows Server. This means that if you’re just looking to set up some VMs and keep things light, Hyper-V Server is pretty appealing. You’re not paying for any additional features or licensing that might include things you won't use, which can help keep costs down.
Now, Windows Server with Hyper-V is a different story. When you deploy this, you’re investing in the full Windows Server OS, and with that, you get a comprehensive suite of features. Licensing here gets a little more complex. With Windows Server, you're not just getting Hyper-V; you're also getting access to all the Windows Server functionalities—active directory services, file and storage services, and a lot more. So, if your projects require those additional services, then investing in Windows Server makes sense.
The licensing model for Windows Server also involves core counts. You have to license a minimum of 16 cores, and if you plan to run VMs, you’ll be bound to how many VMs you can deploy based on those licenses. Essentially, every physical core has to be accounted for, and this can stack up cost-wise, especially for larger setups.
On the flip side, with Hyper-V Server, things might seem simpler. You download it, install it, and you're off to the races, but don't get too comfortable. If you want to keep everything running smoothly and securely, you'll potentially want to pair it with something like Windows Server for management and additional tooling, which brings back some of those licensing considerations.
One big difference to note is support and updates. With Windows Server, you're entitled to Microsoft’s full support, updates, and patches as part of your license. This means you’ll always have the latest security features and fixes. With Hyper-V Server, although it’s still a Microsoft product, you may need to rely more on community support or third-party solutions for things like backups or additional enterprise features.
In a nutshell, if you’re looking at setting up a straightforward hypervisor with no frills and you want to keep costs minimal, Hyper-V Server is a solid choice. But if you find that you need the broader capabilities and features that Windows Server offers, plus official support, then that investment can pay off down the line, especially in a production environment. Choosing the right one really hinges on what you need for your specifics projects and how much complexity you're willing to manage.
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
