Hyper-V Server - the standalone hypervisor, not the one built in to Windows Server 2008.
Whilst I'm waiting for some memory, I thought I would have a play with Hyper-V Server. No intentions of using it, seeing as I think the management of it is too clunky - I have experience of the Hyper-V built in to Windows 2008 Server.
Trouble is, I just don't get it.
Now, its a free, 'small' footprint hypervisor. Now with the same technology built in to w2k8 which is aimed at medium/large businesses, then imho, the Hyper-V Server is aimed at small businesses or extreme home use - corporates would use the full w2k8 implementation.
Now most small businesses considering virtualisation would likely be doing it to reduce server count, so the chances are, would virtualise down to a single server. Sound reasonable?
Well, I thought that was a reasonable assumption. Only, out of the box, you can't. It needs to be in a domain. Which is a problem if you are running your only Domain Controller(s) as virtual machines on the Hyper-V Server - if you leave it in a workgroup, you will find you can't connect to it to manage it. So you need another DC somewhere on the network. So probably pointless virtualising. (you can run it in workgroup, but have to do a lot of advanced changes, and lower a worrying amount of security to get it to work)
OK, what about small branch offices for large companies? Only you need to be near it to put CDs in - connecting to ISOs over network pretty much doesn't work. I lost the will to keep buggering about to get something so simple to work. So, no much good for branch offices - saying that, w2k8 Server's Hyper-V suffers the same.
So I just don't get it, its a product that, as far as I can see, has no market. Cheers, Microsoft, thats another 6hrs of my life wasted
Shame, as I'm sure they would sort out the clunky management in the next version - Hyper-V (either standalone or as part of w2k8) is Microsoft's first attempt at hypervisor based virtualisation.
Author
Topic: What were Microsoft smoking? (Read 436 times)