Hyper V

[logiccs]

I have messed about with vmware previously on workstations and I have been tempted by Hyper-v on our SBS2008 server for some time.

Is it easy to deploy? - so I want to begin by updating our current server to host the VMs then gradually move over certain services to each WM created

Is it worth it? - I understand that i can dedicate resources to different services which i suppose would be useful for the likes of sage (which will constantly keep eating up RAM no matter how much it has to play with!)

Is it good in terms of failover? - We run the following services which i believe are important; File server, DHCP, DNS, SQL Server, IIS, Exchange. Would i need to set each of these up on their own vm then the system will move services if there is a failure???

I am had a look through technet and other tutorials and alot of them are using head battering terms, it would be nice just to hear some simple answers if possible?

Thanks in advance

 

[SAG]

I'm currently logged into a Hyper-V server setting up a few new VMS and doing a couple of P2Vs as I type this.

Is it easy to deploy? - so I want to begin by updating our current server to host the VMs then gradually move over certain services to each WM created

If you ever messed with VM software before then you'll likely find it easy. Working with Hyper-V is more akin to using VMW Workstation than ESX or other "baremetal" hypervisors... in my opinion.

Is it worth it? - I understand that i can dedicate resources to different services which i suppose would be useful for the likes of sage (which will constantly keep eating up RAM no matter how much it has to play with!)

It can be, both cost wise and maintenance wise. I'm currently setting up a sync server who's software loves to take all available memory. I have the VM set to boot with only 512MB of RAM but expand up to 6GB if needed. My big problem with Hyper-V is the 4-CPU limitation, but with good hardware/disks that's usually not a big issue.

Is it good in terms of failover? - We run the following services which i believe are important; File server, DHCP, DNS, SQL Server, IIS, Exchange. Would i need to set each of these up on their own vm then the system will move services if there is a failure???

Move services? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

It's really best to run your Hyper-V host as a dedicated Hyper-V box...doing NOTHING else but the Hyper-V role. I mention this because I see you mention you want to use your current 2008 server...which I"m guessing is already doing a lot of other roles..DC, F&P sharing, hosting stuff, etc. For sandbox/training...adding the hyper-v role to learn is OK. But realize your perceived performance will be bad...cuz the server is busy doing other stuff. I build a hyper-v host and the only thing I do to it is add the hyper-v role...nothing else.

Traditional GUI based Hyper-V role is easy...as mentioned above. Easy peasy GUI to manage the guests. And then there's the "Core" option of Hyper-V...which is more commandlet based, no desktop GUI.

 

[SAG]

It's really best to run your Hyper-V host as a dedicated Hyper-V box...doing NOTHING else but the Hyper-V role. I mention this because I see you mention you want to use your current 2008 server...which I"m guessing is already doing a lot of other roles..DC, F&P sharing, hosting stuff, etc. For sandbox/training...adding the hyper-v role to learn is OK. But realize your perceived performance will be bad...cuz the server is busy doing other stuff. I build a hyper-v host and the only thing I do to it is add the hyper-v role...nothing else.

Traditional GUI based Hyper-V role is easy...as mentioned above. Easy peasy GUI to manage the guests. And then there's the "Core" option of Hyper-V...which is more commandlet based, no desktop GUI.

I was under the impression that he was wanting to move the roles of the SBS to new VMs.

so I want to begin by updating our current server to host the VMs then gradually move over certain services to each WM created

OP, take StoneCat's advice. Hyper-V should be the only role on the physical box.
Now I'm somewhat of a hypocrite in that statement, I have some servers with little helper VMs on them, but not for productive stuff.

 

[spetsnyc]

If you have a chance take a look at Windows Server 2012. You can install Core with Hyper-V role. Microsoft is pushing out Core installation now a lot, moving away from GUI.

 

[pceinc]

We use 2008 r2 Core in our office. It's not difficult to setup. Once you get Hyper-V manager installed on your physical workstation you will do most of your work from there and not from the core console. I can't remember the last time I logged into my core console. I think it was to setup Altaro backup. I'm going to get rid of that soon and go with a spare Datto box we have.

One thing I will say is it easier to setup a non domain workstation as your core manager. It took some extra configuring to get my domain workstation to manage the non domain core server. You could join the core server to your domain if you have a physical DC or secondary DC that is physical but don't join the core server to a DC VM running on the same.

We run a couple of desktop VM's on there as well. One for each OS version. XP, 7 and 8.