2k8 hypervisor vs virtual server 05 r2

[holden j caufield]

It's probably hard to compare the two but are there any real world benchmarks that somewhat compare these two?

 

[Nothinman]

The term "real world benchmark" is an oxymoron.

However, I'd guess that as long as the guest OS is supported and has whatever MS' equivalent to VMware's guest tools/drivers are that the hypervisor would be a little bit faster. And I believe that for the most part that means you're stuck running MS' OSes under either product.

 

[JackMDS]

2k8 hypervisor vs virtual server 05 r2

I assume you mean the new Virtual Server Hyper-V vs. VPC 2005 r2 (both by Microsoft).

If Speed is important Hyper-V has a free version that is basically just a host computer.

It is a stripped Windows 2008 that does Not work as a regular Server.

When the stand alone is installed on a computer the only thing that this computer does is be ready to accept Virtual Machines and run them.

Naturally such installation is fast since the all over head of regular server is Gone.

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

Download, http://www.microsoft.com/downl...95a33a0&displaylang=en

Otherwise, http://hypervoria.com/hyper-v/...al-server-2005-r2.aspx

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: holden j caufield
It's probably hard to compare the two but are there any real world benchmarks that somewhat compare these two?

No benchmark needed. Hyper-V is a lot faster. Its a newer product and supports the newer OSes. VS 2005 R2 is a dead product.

 

[Nothinman]

And if you want to run something other than Windows in those VMs I'd suggest something else like VirtualBox or VMware.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
VS 2005 R2 is a dead product.

Among MS virtualization products, Virtual Server still has some unique uses.

First, the last time I checked, Virtual PC couldn't create a virtual disk larger than 137 GB. Virtual Server can (using virtual SCSI drives).

Second, many PCs don't have the Intel or AMD Virtualization Extensions in their CPU. That'll prevent using Hyper-V or the new virtualization features in Windows 7.

Third, installing Hyper-V on a PC is known to have major effects on graphical performance, even if no child partitions are being run.

 

[giverson]

Hyper-V is much faster, but is only practical on a server. Contrary to what was implied above, it supports a lot of non-MS operating systems. If you want to do desktop virtualization then VirtualBox seems to be the nicest free option. (Though the Virtual PC beta for Windows 7 has a lot of potential.)

 

[mcmilljb]

I like the virtual network features of hyper-v. Hopefully we'll keep seeing more good features in virtualization products.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: holden j caufield
It's probably hard to compare the two but are there any real world benchmarks that somewhat compare these two?

What are you looking to accomplish?