Hyper-v

[Dallascisco]

This is my first ofray into Hyper-V and I must admit I don't understand how it uses IP addresses. My system is set up like so.

dell poweredge r710 with 4 network cards.

originally used first nic to set up the local host machine and hard coded 192.168.200.245 ip to it

set up 2 guest vms on nic 2 and 3 as virtuals inside the vms I assigned .241 and .246

Now I see that my host machine has .245 static and .39 as a dhcp. Ifg I look at the host machine i see 9 network adapters total with 5 showing as active. All 5 show as set to dhcp. I don't see any of my statically assigned addresses at all. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[GeekDrew]

What virtual networks did you configure in Virtual Network Manager? On each of those, did you check the box "Allow management operating system to share this network adapter"?

If you're wanting only NIC 2 and NIC 3 to be used virtually, remove any additional virtual networks from the Virtual Network Manager (and then open NIC 1 in the host o/s and reconfigure the static address). Uncheck the "Allow management..." box for the virtual networks associated with NIC 2 and NIC 3. Checking the "Allow management..." box creates an additional adapter in the host operating system, so that the host o/s can be connected to that virtual network.

 

[yinan]

Make your life easier and use ESXi.

 

[GeekDrew]

Make your life easier and use ESXi.

D:

 

[RebateMonger]

I find understanding Hyper-V networking a bit obscure.

A couple of folks have written tutorials. I've used those along with lots of experimentation to get a working knowledge. But even then, when I haven't used it for a while, I find I have to do a review. I suggest keeping your own notes as you improve your knowledge so you don't have to start over from scratch a few months later.

 

[SammyJr]

Make your life easier and use ESXi.

As much as I like vSphere, Hyper-V is much easier for single computer installs plus, it supports hardware monitoring a lot better.

 

[mvbighead]

As much as I like vSphere, Hyper-V is much easier for single computer installs plus, it supports hardware monitoring a lot better.

Personally, I haven't found anything easy about configuring HyperV. I can get it done, but the whole process just doesn't seem like a good Hypervisor.

With ESX, you configure a switch, connect it to a physical NIC (or NICs), and assign VMs to the switch, just as you would in the physical environment. HyperV, at least from my last experience with it, seemed like you were almost sharing a network connection from a Windows system. I guess I was really hoping that MS would make the VM management totally independent of the host it runs on. IMO, it hasn't. Your host still manages the NICs from the Windows OS, which doesn't seem ideal.

But as far as ease goes, I'd go with ESX(i) every single time.

 

[SammyJr]

Personally, I haven't found anything easy about configuring HyperV. I can get it done, but the whole process just doesn't seem like a good Hypervisor.

With ESX, you configure a switch, connect it to a physical NIC (or NICs), and assign VMs to the switch, just as you would in the physical environment. HyperV, at least from my last experience with it, seemed like you were almost sharing a network connection from a Windows system. I guess I was really hoping that MS would make the VM management totally independent of the host it runs on. IMO, it hasn't. Your host still manages the NICs from the Windows OS, which doesn't seem ideal.

But as far as ease goes, I'd go with ESX(i) every single time.

Hyper-V networking isn't as straight forward as on ESXi. From an administrative standpoint, you are sharing a network connection with the physical Windows instance. I generally configure the Windows/Hyper-V box in its entirety - set up NIC teaming/failover, RAID monitoring, and all that. Then, finally, I add the Hyper-V role. Then it all sets up properly.

The other issue with Hyper-V Server as opposed to full Windows is that it is based around Core. Some manufacturers have had problems supporting their UI on Core, so its their problem, not Microsoft.

Microsoft still has a ways to go for management, but the underlying Hypervisor is rock solid. I hope VMWare is watching their backs - they might have the features lead, but Microsoft is rapidly approaching "Good Enough" for all but the largest shops and at a lower price point.

 

[GeekDrew]

Personally, I haven't found anything easy about configuring HyperV. I can get it done, but the whole process just doesn't seem like a good Hypervisor.

With ESX, you configure a switch, connect it to a physical NIC (or NICs), and assign VMs to the switch, just as you would in the physical environment. HyperV, at least from my last experience with it, seemed like you were almost sharing a network connection from a Windows system. I guess I was really hoping that MS would make the VM management totally independent of the host it runs on. IMO, it hasn't. Your host still manages the NICs from the Windows OS, which doesn't seem ideal.

But as far as ease goes, I'd go with ESX(i) every single time.

I suppose I fail to see the difference between Hyper-V and what you just described. In Hyper-V, you create a virtual network (switch), and associate it with an interface on the host. If you do not check the box that says "Allow management..." then Hyper-V removes the configuration from that interface, and adds the appropriate configuration to allow Hyper-V to manage it as a virtual network. Yes, the interface continues to be listed in the host operating system... so what? Just because it's listed there, doesn't mean you have to (or should) use it for anything.

 

[Genx87]

I dont see the difficulty in using Hyper-V. It is pretty straight forward. The thing it lacks is the management tools. But those are a work in progress. I agree it is getting close to a "good enough" perspective.

 

[Dallascisco]

I set up the host on nic1 and the 2 vms on their own nics (2 and 3). I went back and unchecked that box and things are much simpler now.

What virtual networks did you configure in Virtual Network Manager? On each of those, did you check the box "Allow management operating system to share this network adapter"?

If you're wanting only NIC 2 and NIC 3 to be used virtually, remove any additional virtual networks from the Virtual Network Manager (and then open NIC 1 in the host o/s and reconfigure the static address). Uncheck the "Allow management..." box for the virtual networks associated with NIC 2 and NIC 3. Checking the "Allow management..." box creates an additional adapter in the host operating system, so that the host o/s can be connected to that virtual network.

 

[Dallascisco]

Isn't that not recommeded for a production environment?

Make your life easier and use ESXi.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I have been starting to use this in a production environment and so far everything is working pretty well. It is nice how I am able to back up the guest VMs pretty easily - you just basically do an export and then you can move it to another machine or restore it later pretty easily.

 

[ultimatebob]

Hyper-V still feels like beta software to me at this point. Not only is configuring remote administration a pain in the ass, but it doesn't have hardware support for Sound Cards, Hardware COM Ports, and USB.

Come on, guys... Even the free versions of VMWare supported this stuff years ago.

 

[RebateMonger]

Over the years, I've been told that the U.S. Government told Microsoft it didn't want USB support on virtual servers. That's what I hear when I ask about it, anyway.

Hardware COM ports would certainly be nice for doing FAX modem connections.

 

[yinan]

VMware can pass virtual com ports from the host to a vm and has been able to do this for years.

 

[ultimatebob]

Over the years, I've been told that the U.S. Government told Microsoft it didn't want USB support on virtual servers. That's what I hear when I ask about it, anyway.

Hardware COM ports would certainly be nice for doing FAX modem connections.

Fine... then have a switch in the Hyper V server configuration to disable USB support. Hell, you could even have the default set to true it makes the government happy.

Even Virtual PC in Windows 7 supports this feature, which makes leaving it out of their enterprise grade software seem even more pathetic.

 

[yinan]

I have no idea what you are talking about, this has never been a concern that has been raised to me by the government.