Hyper V Server

[destrekor]

I've got an idea, one that could offer practical solutions as well as provide a great test-bed to expand my knowledge (in the end, to help leverage current skills to get myself onto an IT career track).

This is what I want to do, let me know if it can or cannot be done with Hyper V Server, and if not, what would make it possible? Or in general, what's the best and most applicable for my learning/career intentions?

I want to install a thin virtualization server onto my desktop (which itself is currently dual-booting Windows 8 and Ubuntu 12.10), so that, for now, I'd be triple-booting.

I'd still have the stand-alone Windows 8 for things I need dedicated performance for, which is mostly gaming.

But I'd want to be able to boot into the Virtualization server and also use it from the desktop. I know it's great in the virtual server + thin-client network aspect, but can I run multiple OSes inside Hyper V, and have quick access to both (quickly switching between configured virtual OSes) directly from the machine running them? What would be great is if I can utilize both OSes at once, possibly even running some server/client functions between those two virtual installations, and also be able to do all of that from a separate client on the network, by having a laptop "remotely" (from a LAN) access a provisioned OS on the server, or a specific user account on one of those virtual OSes previously mentioned.

Specific goal: on the Hyper V server, run a virtual Windows Server install alongside an Ubuntu (desktop) install. I might install a separate, specific SQL server or have that done inside Windows Server, and I'd like to play around with Active Directory and Sharepoint. This would give me ample things to work with in a sandbox-style environment from both the desktop itself and from the laptop.

Of course, this all would need to have the desktop running and booted into Hyper V. I realize I'd have nothing the moment I booted into a different physical OS installation on my desktop - but I'm not setting out for a 24/7 virtual server setup. But that's the reason I definitely want to be able to access the OS installations from the machine directly booting them, as when I'm not gaming I could do everything I need from both Windows and Linux.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I believe Windows 8 has Hyper-V support built-in. There shouldn't be any need to triple-boot.

If it doesn't, I'd recommend going with VMware Workstation (or VirtualBox, if you don't feel like spending any money). It's better suited for lab environments, and since it runs on top of the host OS, you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility.

 

[TheSlamma]

Hyper-V server is a hypervisor only, you have to control it from Server Admin tools, preferably from a 2012 server or a Windows 8 machine with Server admin tools installed on it. the local console of a HtperV server isn't going to do much for you at all, it's pretty much designed to be an appliance.

The evilsharpie is correct, VirtualBox is probably the best thing for what you are trying to do

 

[Nothinman]

Hyper-V server is a hypervisor only, you have to control it from Server Admin tools, preferably from a 2012 server or a Windows 8 machine with Server admin tools installed on it. the local console of a HtperV server isn't going to do much for you at all, it's pretty much designed to be an appliance.

The evilsharpie is correct, VirtualBox is probably the best thing for what you are trying to do

I believe MS offers a Hyper-V only install that doesn't include a console, but that's not the only way to do it. It's also a normal role installable on regular Windows Server so you can have desktop apps and Hyper-V on the same machine. Whether it works on Win8 or not, I have no idea.

What you want works fine with something like VMware Workstation, but that's not free and isn't a low level hypervisor. VMware Player might work, I haven't looked at it since I've always had Workstation licenses handy. Unless you have a specific need to learn Hyper-V (and VMware ESXi would be smarter anyway) then go with one of the VMware apps above.

I've used VirtualBox before and it's got it's own set of quirks and problems that I didn't feel like working around. But a lot of people swear by it.

 

[JackMDS]

Getting Started with the FREE Hyper-V Server 2012

http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmay...-server-2012-hyperv-virtualization-itpro.aspx

 

[Nothinman]

Getting Started with the FREE Hyper-V Server 2012

http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmay...-server-2012-hyperv-virtualization-itpro.aspx

That's what we're telling him that he can't use because it doesn't have a full desktop.

 

[destrekor]

One, I am considering this route precisely because I want a light-weight hypervisor system to host OSes.

I don't want a VM system running atop a full and bloated OS installation. Resources are far more limited in that environment. From what I understand, it would seem that resource management is far better in the hypervisor method. What piques my interest with Hyper-V Server 2012 is that it includes dynamic resource allocation, between multiple OSes (and from what I've read, it does it better than the rest). With dedicated VM systems, like VirtualBox (which I have used plenty), you do not get that. You have to physically partition away resources, and extra/not enough becomes a hellish nightmare for both parent and guest OS installs. Things slow down everywhere.


I guess what I am looking for is this:
from Hyper-V Server 2012, can I have Windows Server 2012 installed as a virtual OS, and from within that, utilize the Hyper-V management tools?
I COULD use Windows Server 2012 outright, but to utilize the Hyper-V role, the full server MUST be running as well (unless, I missed something...?).

Now, if I can utilize the Hyper-V management tools from within Windows Server 2012, I imagine, just like true remote management situations, that that virtual OS wouldn't need to be running 24/7 just for Hypervisor to continue to function.

But from the same desktop that Hyper-V is installed, could I even access both virtual OS's I would be planning to have installed.

As much as I'd actually prefer to learn ESXi, it's not free, is it? I've seen that brought up more in the virtualized world (including job postings) than anything else, including Hyper-V, so for the "learning" view point, it would be the ideal candidate. But in this case, learning to work with the concept itself is a big enough objective, as is having a more resource-friendly system for home-use, as well as something not requiring a huge expenditure (ideally, none).

 

[Nothinman]

One, I am considering this route precisely because I want a light-weight hypervisor system to host OSes.

I don't want a VM system running atop a full and bloated OS installation. Resources are far more limited in that environment. From what I understand, it would seem that resource management is far better in the hypervisor method. What piques my interest with Hyper-V Server 2012 is that it includes dynamic resource allocation, between multiple OSes (and from what I've read, it does it better than the rest). With dedicated VM systems, like VirtualBox (which I have used plenty), you do not get that. You have to physically partition away resources, and extra/not enough becomes a hellish nightmare for both parent and guest OS installs. Things slow down everywhere.

You can't really have it both ways. A bare-bones hypervisor doesn't give you a console with direct hardware access. And you're exaggerating the resource management greatly. As I said, I run VMware Workstation with Win7 in it daily for work on a Linux host and it works fine. There's even limited 3D acceleration to the guest for Aero.

As much as I'd actually prefer to learn ESXi, it's not free, is it? I've seen that brought up more in the virtualized world (including job postings) than anything else, including Hyper-V, so for the "learning" view point, it would be the ideal candidate. But in this case, learning to work with the concept itself is a big enough objective, as is having a more resource-friendly system for home-use, as well as something not requiring a huge expenditure (ideally, none).

Yes, it is you're just limited in the hardware it will use and the management features. For example, you can't use vCenter to pool free ESXi hosts.

 

[destrekor]

I believe Windows 8 has Hyper-V support built-in. There shouldn't be any need to triple-boot.

If it doesn't, I'd recommend going with VMware Workstation (or VirtualBox, if you don't feel like spending any money). It's better suited for lab environments, and since it runs on top of the host OS, you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility.

Hyper-V server is a hypervisor only, you have to control it from Server Admin tools, preferably from a 2012 server or a Windows 8 machine with Server admin tools installed on it. the local console of a HtperV server isn't going to do much for you at all, it's pretty much designed to be an appliance.

The evilsharpie is correct, VirtualBox is probably the best thing for what you are trying to do

That's what we're telling him that he can't use because it doesn't have a full desktop.

I'm not worried about the "host-system" having a desktop, I just want to be able to access A desktop, specifically in my mind already, a virtual OS desktop.
In this case, the main goal being to be able to access BOTH virtual OS desktops; preferably, being able to access BOTH without having to do the reboot dance. Can I "cycle" between "guest" OSes.

Or, does Hyper-V's lack of desktop go all the way to the point that it can't even draw up a visual framework for a guest OS?


Let's put it this way: I've tried Ubuntu in a VM on a Windows 7 desktop (haven't tried on Win8), and it was frustrating. Even with my desktop's configuration (Intel i7, 8GB RAM), even with the Intel virtualization enabled in BIOS, and all the tweaks I could manage, it still seemed slow. It has made a lot of improvement, especially since trying that with in the Pentium 4/Athlon XP days, but it was still frustrating - and is what led me to just throw Ubuntu as a physical OS install on my rig.

If I did Hyper-V from within Windows Server 2012, would it be any different? From that same Windows Server 2012 desktop, could I even switch into the virtual OS? Or is the Hyper-V setup only a functioning solution if you want to remote into it from an entirely different system?

 

[destrekor]

You can't really have it both ways. A bare-bones hypervisor doesn't give you a console with direct hardware access. And you're exaggerating the resource management greatly. As I said, I run VMware Workstation with Win7 in it daily for work on a Linux host and it works fine. There's even limited 3D acceleration to the guest for Aero.



Yes, it is you're just limited in the hardware it will use and the management features. For example, you can't use vCenter to pool free ESXi hosts.

I don't feel I'm exaggerating the resource management. But, perhaps Linux is that much of a better host? I still haven't tried installing a Win7 VM on Ubuntu in Virtualbox (something I was planning to do, never got around to it - had to do something, never loaded it up again to see if the fix worked).
Linux might be slightly better with resource management as a host OS, so it allows more room for the virtual OS to breath. But, if you don't acknowledge lost performance in both the Host and Guest, you either aren't doing enough or you do realize there is lost performance, but either A) don't care, or B) have grown to live with it.
If I HAD to live with it, I would - but the performance loss isn't something I can accept when I'm just screwing around (for that's really what this all is in the end, except I hope to learn something too).

Now, with that said, can ESXi even offer what I am looking for (after reading my post immediately prior to this one)? 1) if Hyper-V can't do what I want, does ESXi actually offer it? Or, is it just not possible to achieve strictly what I am looking for, in this case?

If the latter is ultimately the case, then does I just have to *live with* the loss of performance of running a true Host OS to enable the virtualization I am looking for?

 

[TheSlamma]

I believe MS offers a Hyper-V only install that doesn't include a console, but that's not the only way to do it. It's also a normal role installable on regular Windows Server so you can have desktop apps and Hyper-V on the same machine. Whether it works on Win8 or not, I have no idea.

Hyper-V server and Server 2012 are different products. Hyper-v server R3 or 2012 is a stand alone free hypervisor. Server 2012 is a license purchase and yes it does have the Hyper-V role on it.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't feel I'm exaggerating the resource management. But, perhaps Linux is that much of a better host? I still haven't tried installing a Win7 VM on Ubuntu in Virtualbox (something I was planning to do, never got around to it - had to do something, never loaded it up again to see if the fix worked).
Linux might be slightly better with resource management as a host OS, so it allows more room for the virtual OS to breath. But, if you don't acknowledge lost performance in both the Host and Guest, you either aren't doing enough or you do realize there is lost performance, but either A) don't care, or B) have grown to live with it.
If I HAD to live with it, I would - but the performance loss isn't something I can accept when I'm just screwing around (for that's really what this all is in the end, except I hope to learn something too).

Now, with that said, can ESXi even offer what I am looking for (after reading my post immediately prior to this one)? 1) if Hyper-V can't do what I want, does ESXi actually offer it? Or, is it just not possible to achieve strictly what I am looking for, in this case?

If the latter is ultimately the case, then does I just have to *live with* the loss of performance of running a true Host OS to enable the virtualization I am looking for?

If you want any level of gaming within a VM, your only real choice is VMware Workstation because it does 3D acceleration within guests. VMware ESXi and Hyper-V don't even have the option. VirtualBox does but from what I've heard and seen it's alpha quality at best.

I can't remember what CPU my laptop has but it still has a spindle drive and it runs Win7 on top of Linux just fine. It's not as if it's 100% native, but I use it for work daily without any performance issues. My PC here is an i5 with 16G and I've got 5 VMs running and I constantly forget they're there. VMware Workstation isn't cheap, but the performance it gives over the others is worth it, IMO. Although I believe it does run significantly better on Linux than on Windows. Get a demo key and try it for a month. What do you have to lose?

I'm willing to bet I've got a little bit of A and B going here, but that's just how it works. If you're going to nit pick things that much and aren't willing to give a little bit, you're just going to get frustrated and never accomplish anything.

Let's put it this way: I've tried Ubuntu in a VM on a Windows 7 desktop (haven't tried on Win8), and it was frustrating. Even with my desktop's configuration (Intel i7, 8GB RAM), even with the Intel virtualization enabled in BIOS, and all the tweaks I could manage, it still seemed slow. It has made a lot of improvement, especially since trying that with in the Pentium 4/Athlon XP days, but it was still frustrating - and is what led me to just throw Ubuntu as a physical OS install on my rig.

I think Linux guests have always felt slightly slower than Windows guests in VMware, possibly because of the Xorg drivers not being as mature as the Windows drivers. But since I'm almost always running a Linux host it hasn't been an issue for me.

Hyper-V server and Server 2012 are different products. Hyper-v server R3 or 2012 is a stand alone free hypervisor. Server 2012 is a license purchase and yes it does have the Hyper-V role on it.

And the former doesn't have a real GUI console and AFAIK you can't give Hyper-V guests 3D acceleration so neither will work for what he wants.

 

[sourceninja]

When it comes to free hypervisors, don't discount XenServer. It has a lot of features that you typically need to pay extra for with vmware. I'm a huge vmware fan and only use vmware in my datacenter, but I have setup XenServer installs for small businesses and it's a great product, even on the free level. It can even do GPU passthough when you get into the paid editions.

 

[destrekor]

If you want any level of gaming within a VM, your only real choice is VMware Workstation because it does 3D acceleration within guests. VMware ESXi and Hyper-V don't even have the option. VirtualBox does but from what I've heard and seen it's alpha quality at best.

I can't remember what CPU my laptop has but it still has a spindle drive and it runs Win7 on top of Linux just fine. It's not as if it's 100% native, but I use it for work daily without any performance issues. My PC here is an i5 with 16G and I've got 5 VMs running and I constantly forget they're there. VMware Workstation isn't cheap, but the performance it gives over the others is worth it, IMO. Although I believe it does run significantly better on Linux than on Windows. Get a demo key and try it for a month. What do you have to lose?

I'm willing to bet I've got a little bit of A and B going here, but that's just how it works. If you're going to nit pick things that much and aren't willing to give a little bit, you're just going to get frustrated and never accomplish anything.



I think Linux guests have always felt slightly slower than Windows guests in VMware, possibly because of the Xorg drivers not being as mature as the Windows drivers. But since I'm almost always running a Linux host it hasn't been an issue for me.



And the former doesn't have a real GUI console and AFAIK you can't give Hyper-V guests 3D acceleration so neither will work for what he wants.

Hell, I feel like a Windows guest on a Windows host was still a painful situation. I do need to try it in Linux though.


As for 3D - I'm not sure yet. For sure, I'm not really worried about gaming. Perhaps, if anything, some basic browser game or something else minimal, but the real gaming would be going on from a physical OS on the desktop.
It would be nice to have the option though. When it comes to computing, there's nothing more I hate than decisions being made for me. For one, general desktop UIs look great with 3D rendering, some effects are gained, and in general the option is there to let the GPUs do something more, like helping accelerate video playback.

In short, if I COULD have GPU access for the VMs, that would be great.

What about Xen? Does it offer GPU access? I have heard that between specialized drivers AND Intel virtualization that a VM will outperform - but it all has to run on top of a Linux host. Which, I wouldn't be against, it just means that's a factor. And does it still offer remote access via the server/thin-client concept?
That's one thing that, through all this, I want to maintain. It would be nice to be able to load up my laptop, and test out like three system systems. Figure I could log into the remote OS that was installed for that specific purpose, and then from there verify the other servers are functioning as intended, say, by checking out if Active Directory is doing what I want, and determining whether Sharepoint is doing its thing.

 

[theevilsharpie]

You're making this WAAAAAAAY too hard on yourself.

If interactive desktop performance within a VM is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Full stop. Period. End of story. Nothing else comes close performance-wise. If you've suffered poor performance in the past, you either overcommitted your host, underprovisioned your guest, or failed to install the VMware tools. The operating system you use for the host doesn't impact performance to any appreciable degree, but Windows will be more stable.

If being able to access a desktop on the host is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Hyper-V has a desktop accessible from the host, but you'll need the full version of Windows Server 2012. The freely available Hyper-V runs on top of Server Core, and only has a command-line available. ESXi and XenServer have no desktops to speak of.

If being able to use 3D acceleration in a guest or on the host is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Nothing else will provide acceptable performance or functionality.

If you need to run ESXi or Hyper-V for learning purposes, you can run them within VMware Workstation.

In summary, I strongly recommend you use VMware Workstation.

From what I understand, it would seem that resource management is far better in the hypervisor method.

Bare-metal hypervisors will be better at resource management, but that only matters if your host is overcommitted and you need to allocate available resources in a deterministic fashion (similar to how QoS is used to control contention in the networking wold). For your purposes, your primary bottlenecks will be memory and disk I/O. Overcommitting these will tank performance regardless of what virtualization platform you use.

P.S. Use VMware Workstation

 

[destrekor]

You're making this WAAAAAAAY too hard on yourself.

If interactive desktop performance within a VM is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Full stop. Period. End of story. Nothing else comes close performance-wise. If you've suffered poor performance in the past, you either overcommitted your host, underprovisioned your guest, or failed to install the VMware tools. The operating system you use for the host doesn't impact performance to any appreciable degree, but Windows will be more stable.

If being able to access a desktop on the host is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Hyper-V has a desktop accessible from the host, but you'll need the full version of Windows Server 2012. The freely available Hyper-V runs on top of Server Core, and only has a command-line available. ESXi and XenServer have no desktops to speak of.

If being able to use 3D acceleration in a guest or on the host is important to you, use VMware Workstation. Nothing else will provide acceptable performance or functionality.

If you need to run ESXi or Hyper-V for learning purposes, you can run them within VMware Workstation.

In summary, I strongly recommend you use VMware Workstation.



Bare-metal hypervisors will be better at resource management, but that only matters if your host is overcommitted and you need to allocate available resources in a deterministic fashion (similar to how QoS is used to control contention in the networking wold). For your purposes, your primary bottlenecks will be memory and disk I/O. Overcommitting these will tank performance regardless of what virtualization platform you use.

P.S. Use VMware Workstation

Can VMware Workstation provide for remote thin-clients?

And, while I'm about to go off and research this bit myself, from what I understand you cannot run a Type 1 hypervisor on a Type 2 hypervisor.

Also, a little digging led to another question:

Using Windows Server 2012, with Hyper-V, do the virtual OSes interface directly with the hypervisor, ignoring the management platform (Windows Server)?
From what I read, that certainly sounds to be the case. Granted, it sounds like it wouldn't provide me with the exact setup I'd be looking for, but I could install a Type 2 hypervisor to use a second OS while in Windows Server on the desktop machine, and remotely, I could interface with a remote OS that would be effectively be bare-metal.
That is, if I understood correctly.

edit:
that was fast. Seems that VMware Workstation offers nested virtualization, offering Hyper-V support within a guest. Seems nuts.

And other features seem great. However: anyone know of any Educational licenses? I am NOT paying $250 just to screw around on my home PC.
And if I wanted remote access to virtual machines, would I need TWO licenses? Ridiculous.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Can VMware Workstation provide for remote thin-clients?

I don't know what that means.

If you're asking if you can access VMware Workstation remotely, yes. However, you will need VMware Workstation on the remote machine as a client, so it would be similar to VMware vSphere Client or RSAT in that regard.

If you're asking if VMware Workstation can be used for a VDI-type role, there is no express support for it, but nothing is stopping you from enabling remote access in your guests.

And, while I'm about to go off and research this bit myself, from what I understand you cannot run a Type 1 hypervisor on a Type 2 hypervisor.

Your understanding is not correct.

Also, a little digging led to another question:

Using Windows Server 2012, with Hyper-V, do the virtual OSes interface directly with the hypervisor, ignoring the management platform (Windows Server)?

From what I read, that certainly sounds to be the case. Granted, it sounds like it wouldn't provide me with the exact setup I'd be looking for, but I could install a Type 2 hypervisor to use a second OS while in Windows Server on the desktop machine, and remotely, I could interface with a remote OS that would be effectively be bare-metal.
That is, if I understood correctly.

What?

 

[theevilsharpie]

However: anyone know of any Educational licenses? I am NOT paying $250 just to screw around on my home PC.

VMware Player is freely available. I understand that it lacks some of the more advanced functionality of VMware Workstation, but the the performance should be the same.

 

[sourceninja]

VirtualBox is also free and works just as well as vmware workstation for just playing around.

 

[destrekor]

What?

heh

I read a statement wrong. Or, the statement I read was worded very strangely, but doesn't actually mean what it seems to imply:

Note: Microsoft Hyper-V (released in June 2008)[6] exemplifies a type 1 product that can be mistaken for a type 2. Both the free stand-alone version and the version that is part of the commercial Windows Server 2008 product use a virtualized Windows Server 2008 parent partition to manage the Type 1 Hyper-V hypervisor. In both cases the Hyper-V hypervisor loads prior to the management operating system, and any virtual environments created run directly on the hypervisor, not via the management operating system.

 

[destrekor]

VirtualBox is also free and works just as well as vmware workstation for just playing around.

Alright everyone, answer this:

VirtualBox vs VMware - performance similar, or different enough to notice?

I have plenty of experience with VirtualBox, but I wouldn't be able to get done what I wanted (as it turns out, it might just not be possible?) using it alone.

 

[sourceninja]

VMWare workstation and virtualbox have about the same performance. It will be heavily dependent on the host machine's disk access, ram, and cpu (in that order typically).

I use vmware fusion to emulate two esx servers for my test environment that I use when studying for my certs. Works fine for me.

 

[imagoon]

Alright everyone, answer this:

VirtualBox vs VMware - performance similar, or different enough to notice?

I have plenty of experience with VirtualBox, but I wouldn't be able to get done what I wanted (as it turns out, it might just not be possible?) using it alone.

Not even close. VMWare workstation is king at the moment.

As for the Windows "Type 1" / "Type 2" thing.. In hyper-V the actual Hypervisor runs the console OS but gives it special access to the hardware. All other VM's are "locked in." Hyper-V however requires that special OS for management and it can't be removed. Server Core is the closest you get to having nothing.

For testing I have run ESXi5 inside VMWare workstation 8. I even run an Hyper-V host inside the ESXi5 host running in Workstation so...

Windows 2008r2 -> Hyper-V 2008R2 -> ESXi5 -> Workstation 8 -> Windows 7. I did it just to see if I could. VM extensions made it all the way through.

VMWare Workstation with an OS running in full screen mode is the closest that I have gotten to what you described. It runs 2008R2 with Aero without an issue. It seems to do "ok" with KDE. You won't be able to get away from having an OS though since all the real Type 1 Hypervisors use virtual video without GUI consoles for the most part.

 

[TheSlamma]

And the former doesn't have a real GUI console and AFAIK you can't give Hyper-V guests 3D acceleration so neither will work for what he wants.

and precisely why I stated it wasn't what he wanted in my first post.

God why do people not read these days

 

[Nothinman]

The operating system you use for the host doesn't impact performance to any appreciable degree, but Windows will be more stable.

I would say the opposite. The host OS makes a big difference and the last time I tried VMware on Windows its disk I/O was noticeably worse than that of Linux. Perhaps things are better now, but I would still lean towards a Linux host if you want performance.

and precisely why I stated it wasn't what he wanted in my first post.

God why do people not read these days

No, if you want to be pedantic, nowhere in that post did you say "You don't want to use Hyper-V".

God, why can't people explicitly say what they mean and not assume everyone else is thinking exactly like them these days...