Ce site est optimisé pour être consulté depuis un navigateur moderne dans lequel JavaScript est activé.

Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 vs. Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V role?

ayi

There are currently two Microsoft HyperVisor products:

Hyper-V Server 2008 R2

http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx

Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Role

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/hyperv-main.aspx

Question - Is there a functional difference between the two, regarding hypervisor performance or features?

If not, what possible reason is there to use the Hyper-V Role instead of the standalone hypervisor? There are clear advantages in having a smaller footprint and attack surface from the standalone hypervisor.

It seems like Hyper-V role gets much more media spotlight and documentation as opposed to the standalone hypervisor.

If you're using Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Role, can you share why you chose to do this rather than Hyper-V Server?

ayi

With Hypervisor perfomance and features, there isn't a difference, they will both do exactly the same thing without limitation. When you install the full Server product, you incur the overhead that the OS requires. You are able to use all other roles available in the edition you've installed, each one adding impact to each other as they are added.

I have one in each scenario. The Hyper-V Server was a lower spec'd machine, and I wanted to squeeze everything out of it for VMs.

The Server 2008 R2 w/ Hyper-V is a development server with a ton of memory and disk space, and I wanted full GUI control direct from the console.