Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

[Guest ThomasAJ]

I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a backup

box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

 

I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency backup

for my current W2003.

 

Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

scenario and a simpler product exists.

--

Regards

Tom

[Guest ThomasAJ]

RE: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

 

Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

--

Regards

Tom

 

 

"ThomasAJ" wrote:

> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a backup

> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

>

> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency backup

> for my current W2003.

>

> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

> scenario and a simpler product exists.

> --

> Regards

> Tom

[Guest Bill Grant]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

The simplest to use is VPC. You could run it on XP or Vista and have both

XP and Server 2003 guest machines.

 

Personally I would regard Hyper-V as easier to deal with than Virtual

Server. (The Admin Web page for virtual server is tricky to set up and use

and requires IIS).

 

To run Hyper-V you must have 64-bit hardware and BIOS which support

virtualization.

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:9BA946D6-80DE-44A8-977F-96A961D98208@microsoft.com...

> Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

>

> Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

> --

> Regards

> Tom

>

>

> "ThomasAJ" wrote:

>

>> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a

>> backup

>> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

>>

>> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

>> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency

>> backup

>> for my current W2003.

>>

>> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

>> scenario and a simpler product exists.

>> --

>> Regards

>> Tom

[Guest Bruce Sanderson]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

I agree with Bill. If you are going to install Server 2008, use Hyper-V for

virtual machines.

 

Make sure you install the update from KB950050 - the RTM version of Hyper-V.

If you use Windows Update or WSUS it will be offered automatically.

 

Once you understand the virtualization concepts, the difference in

difficulty of use between VS 2005 and Hyper-V is small. Hyper-V has some

capabilities the VS does not (e.g. "snapshots") which are useful. Also,

performance should be better with Hyper-V.

 

If for some reason you do choose to use Virtual Server, I suggest installing

and using VMRC-Plus. This makes it unnecessary to use the awkward VS

Administration web site - see

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=80adc08c-bfc6-4c3a-b4f1-772f550ae791&DisplayLang=en.

 

--

Bruce Sanderson

http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders

 

It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.

 

 

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:9BA946D6-80DE-44A8-977F-96A961D98208@microsoft.com...

> Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

>

> Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

> --

> Regards

> Tom

>

>

> "ThomasAJ" wrote:

>

>> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a

>> backup

>> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

>>

>> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

>> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency

>> backup

>> for my current W2003.

>>

>> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

>> scenario and a simpler product exists.

>> --

>> Regards

>> Tom

[Guest ThomasAJ]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

Does VPC mean Virtual PC?

 

When you say "You could run it on XP or Vista" I'm confused by 'concepts' I

have.

 

I thought the term 'Virtual' refered to a mainly software based (but I know

there are hardware requirements like Intel-VT for some/all? virtualizations)

'layer' that 'sits between' OSs and hardware and manages multiple OSs.

 

So I'm not being picky I assure you, I just want to be clear at the

schematic level.

 

Also I've heard phrases like 'Hyper-V runs on W2008'. Is it just loose

phrasing OR must W2008 be installed. I've seen an IBM video explaining

Hyper-V on their servers and my understanding is that Hyper-V is a HAL

(H'ware Abstraction Layer) sitting between the H'ware and the many OSs that

run 'on top'.

 

So the phrase 'Hyper-V runs on W2008' would be incorrect. Do I misunderstand

the concepts of Virtual(ization)?

--

Regards

Tom

 

 

"Bill Grant" wrote:

> The simplest to use is VPC. You could run it on XP or Vista and have both

> XP and Server 2003 guest machines.

>

> Personally I would regard Hyper-V as easier to deal with than Virtual

> Server. (The Admin Web page for virtual server is tricky to set up and use

> and requires IIS).

>

> To run Hyper-V you must have 64-bit hardware and BIOS which support

> virtualization.

>

> "ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:9BA946D6-80DE-44A8-977F-96A961D98208@microsoft.com...

> > Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

> >

> > Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

> > --

> > Regards

> > Tom

> >

> >

> > "ThomasAJ" wrote:

> >

> >> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a

> >> backup

> >> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

> >>

> >> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

> >> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency

> >> backup

> >> for my current W2003.

> >>

> >> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

> >> scenario and a simpler product exists.

> >> --

> >> Regards

> >> Tom

>

>

[Guest ThomasAJ]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

OR does 'run it on XP or Vista' refer to how VPC is first installed and then

many different OSs can 'run on top'?

 

Regarding hardware for Hyper-V, I presume 64bit architecture is much more

expensive than 'normal' hware.

 

My situation is a very simple W2003 server using Terminal Services to allow

4/5 users to access 1 main app on the server.

 

Whilst the environ is very simple I want to set up a rock solid disaster

recovery system for the server and my development XP. So I'm hoping that some

sort of virtualization on a new box plus Acronis backup/restore software

might do the trick.

 

--

Regards

Tom

 

 

"Bill Grant" wrote:

> The simplest to use is VPC. You could run it on XP or Vista and have both

> XP and Server 2003 guest machines.

>

> Personally I would regard Hyper-V as easier to deal with than Virtual

> Server. (The Admin Web page for virtual server is tricky to set up and use

> and requires IIS).

>

> To run Hyper-V you must have 64-bit hardware and BIOS which support

> virtualization.

>

> "ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:9BA946D6-80DE-44A8-977F-96A961D98208@microsoft.com...

> > Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

> >

> > Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

> > --

> > Regards

> > Tom

> >

> >

> > "ThomasAJ" wrote:

> >

> >> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a

> >> backup

> >> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

> >>

> >> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have an

> >> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency

> >> backup

> >> for my current W2003.

> >>

> >> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for this

> >> scenario and a simpler product exists.

> >> --

> >> Regards

> >> Tom

>

>

[Guest Synapse Syndrome]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:C9F40542-59F9-4C3D-AE14-E61B7D7B7ACB@microsoft.com...

>

> Regarding hardware for Hyper-V, I presume 64bit architecture is much more

> expensive than 'normal' hware.

 

The vast majority of computers sold in the last couple of years are 64-bit

capable, from consumer, up to enterprise level. As long as you have a Intel

Core 2 or (Xeon of the same vintage) or AMD Athlon/Opteron64, X2, or later,

machine, you have 64-bit hardware.

 

ss.

[Guest Bruce Sanderson]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

There's various ways to implement "virtualization". The two common ways in

the Windows world are:

 

1. a. install a full Windows operating system - Windows XP, Windows Server

2003, Vista

b. install an application that provides an environment that essentially

"emulates" a real machine for running Virtual Machines

 

2. a. install a very small "operating system" that merely provides a way to

run one or more virtual machines as efficiently as possible

b. in one of the virtual machines (or possibly on a seperate computer)

install an application for managing the very small "operating system" and

the virtual environment

 

Microsoft Virtual Server and Virtual PC are of the first kind. VMWare also

has a product like this.

 

Hyper-V, which is a "Role" for Windows Server 2008 is of the second kind.

VMWare also have a product like this.

 

Although one "installs" Hyper-V from within a running Windows Server 2008

system, once it is installed, and the computer restarted, the "hypervisor"

loads as the small "operating system" and the original Windows Server 2008

system becomes the first Virtual Machine (refered to as the "parent virtual

machine"). Perhaps this is the source of the confusing messages - one

installs Hyper-V from the running Server 2008 OS, but after it is installed,

Server 2008 runs as a Virtual Machine under Hyper-V.

 

I understand that Microsoft is also making Hyper-V available as a stand

alone product, but I'm not familiar with this.

 

Virtual Server and Virtual PC don't require "virtualization assist" features

available in some hardware, although Virtual Server at least will use it if

it is present in the host hardware.

 

Hyper-V requires the virtualization assist features that is in essentially

all recent "server" hardware. If you buy a new server, it will most likely

have the required features, but you will want to verify this with server

vendor before purchasing. Many "desktop" motherboards and processes also

have the required virtualization assist features.

 

Hyper-V is only available with the 64 bit flavour of Windows Server 2008.

Again essentially all (new) servers available today will have 64 bit

hardware and most new desktops do also.

 

Once the virtualization environment is in place (either type 1 or type 2 or

any other type), one defines a Virtual Machine and configures it with RAM,

hard disks, network connections etc.

 

The virtual environment usually "emulates" specific hardware, so whatever OS

you install will need to have the drivers for that emulated hardware. All

Windows versions (XP and later) have the drivers in-box for the hardware

emulated by Virtual PC, Virtual Server and Hyper-V (you may need to install

the Hyper-V "integration services" in the guest OS, but this is very simple

to do). Also, to improve performance, the virtualization environment

provides additional drivers for the "supported" operating systems.

Microsoft and VMWare proivide the required drivers for various operating

systems for their virtual environments (see for example

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954958, which lists the operating systems

"supported" as guests in Hyper-V virtual machines - other operating systems

might work, but support for that is not available from Microsof).

 

You can certainly run Windows Server 2003 with Terminal Services feature

installed in a Virtual Machine under Virtual Server or Hyper-V (possibly

under Virtual PC as well).

 

Virtual Server and Hyper-V (also the VMWare products) are "reliable" and

"robust", but no piece of hardware and software by itself will be "rock

solid".

You will still need to pay attention to redundancy, backup etc. If you

really need "rock solid" availability, you might want to consider some form

of fail-over clustering, but from your description of the environment you

want to "virtualize", that may well be unnecessarily complex and expensive.

 

--

Bruce Sanderson

http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders

 

It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.

 

 

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:240E169D-D700-4A84-A069-960B3E025DA0@microsoft.com...

> Does VPC mean Virtual PC?

>

> When you say "You could run it on XP or Vista" I'm confused by 'concepts'

> I

> have.

>

> I thought the term 'Virtual' refered to a mainly software based (but I

> know

> there are hardware requirements like Intel-VT for some/all?

> virtualizations)

> 'layer' that 'sits between' OSs and hardware and manages multiple OSs.

>

> So I'm not being picky I assure you, I just want to be clear at the

> schematic level.

>

> Also I've heard phrases like 'Hyper-V runs on W2008'. Is it just loose

> phrasing OR must W2008 be installed. I've seen an IBM video explaining

> Hyper-V on their servers and my understanding is that Hyper-V is a HAL

> (H'ware Abstraction Layer) sitting between the H'ware and the many OSs

> that

> run 'on top'.

>

> So the phrase 'Hyper-V runs on W2008' would be incorrect. Do I

> misunderstand

> the concepts of Virtual(ization)?

> --

> Regards

> Tom

>

>

> "Bill Grant" wrote:

>

>> The simplest to use is VPC. You could run it on XP or Vista and have

>> both

>> XP and Server 2003 guest machines.

>>

>> Personally I would regard Hyper-V as easier to deal with than Virtual

>> Server. (The Admin Web page for virtual server is tricky to set up and

>> use

>> and requires IIS).

>>

>> To run Hyper-V you must have 64-bit hardware and BIOS which support

>> virtualization.

>>

>> "ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:9BA946D6-80DE-44A8-977F-96A961D98208@microsoft.com...

>> > Maybe Virtual Server 2005 is simpler.

>> >

>> > Oh and I'd like to restore my XP onto it also.

>> > --

>> > Regards

>> > Tom

>> >

>> >

>> > "ThomasAJ" wrote:

>> >

>> >> I want to upgrade to W2008 down the track but in the meantime I want a

>> >> backup

>> >> box for my 4YO IBM X206 running W2003. (I cannot get another X206)

>> >>

>> >> I was thinking of Installing W2008 with Hyper-V on a new box, and have

>> >> an

>> >> area (whatever it's called) set aside so I can use it as an emergency

>> >> backup

>> >> for my current W2003.

>> >>

>> >> Or is Hyper-V too sophisticated (and too great a learning curve) for

>> >> this

>> >> scenario and a simpler product exists.

>> >> --

>> >> Regards

>> >> Tom

>>

>>

[Guest Bill Grant]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

 

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:240E169D-D700-4A84-A069-960B3E025DA0@microsoft.com...

> Does VPC mean Virtual PC?

>

> When you say "You could run it on XP or Vista" I'm confused by 'concepts'

> I

> have.

>

> I thought the term 'Virtual' refered to a mainly software based (but I

> know

> there are hardware requirements like Intel-VT for some/all?

> virtualizations)

> 'layer' that 'sits between' OSs and hardware and manages multiple OSs.

>

> So I'm not being picky I assure you, I just want to be clear at the

> schematic level.

>

> Also I've heard phrases like 'Hyper-V runs on W2008'. Is it just loose

> phrasing OR must W2008 be installed. I've seen an IBM video explaining

> Hyper-V on their servers and my understanding is that Hyper-V is a HAL

> (H'ware Abstraction Layer) sitting between the H'ware and the many OSs

> that

> run 'on top'.

>

> So the phrase 'Hyper-V runs on W2008' would be incorrect. Do I

> misunderstand

> the concepts of Virtual(ization)?

> --

> Regards

> Tom

>

Virtual PC and Virtual Server are application programs. They run on top

of a Windows OS. On my desktop I run Vista Business. I run VPC as an

application under Vista. I have two vms installed under VPC, one running

Windows XP and the other running Server 2003. These machines are virtual

machines which use the CPU in the host machine. The CPU is "virtualized".

VPC queues the CPU requests to the host machine's CPU.

 

Hyper-V is a role which you can enable on Windows Server 2008 x64 with

Hyper-V. (Note that you can purchase Server 2008 without Hyper-V. On this

version you cannot enable the Hyper-V role). When you install the Hyper-V

role, it enables the hypervisor which, as correctly state, sits between the

hardware and the OS. You initial installation of Server 2008 now operates in

the parent partition and vms are installed into child partitions. This is

quite different from VPC and Virtual Server.

[Guest ThomasAJ]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

Thanks Bill, VPC looks to be simplest for me right now.

 

You said "I have two vms installed under VPC, one running

Windows XP and the other running Server 2003."

 

Do these 2 OSs run simultaneously?

I have W2003 with Terminal Services being used by 5 users currently.

 

So down the track could I use XP for my development work AND users use W2003

for production simulataneously.

 

My understanding is that HYPER-V can support such a scenario, but what about

VPC?

 

--

Regards

Tom

 

 

"Bill Grant" wrote:

>

>

> "ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:240E169D-D700-4A84-A069-960B3E025DA0@microsoft.com...

> > Does VPC mean Virtual PC?

> >

> > When you say "You could run it on XP or Vista" I'm confused by 'concepts'

> > I

> > have.

> >

> > I thought the term 'Virtual' refered to a mainly software based (but I

> > know

> > there are hardware requirements like Intel-VT for some/all?

> > virtualizations)

> > 'layer' that 'sits between' OSs and hardware and manages multiple OSs.

> >

> > So I'm not being picky I assure you, I just want to be clear at the

> > schematic level.

> >

> > Also I've heard phrases like 'Hyper-V runs on W2008'. Is it just loose

> > phrasing OR must W2008 be installed. I've seen an IBM video explaining

> > Hyper-V on their servers and my understanding is that Hyper-V is a HAL

> > (H'ware Abstraction Layer) sitting between the H'ware and the many OSs

> > that

> > run 'on top'.

> >

> > So the phrase 'Hyper-V runs on W2008' would be incorrect. Do I

> > misunderstand

> > the concepts of Virtual(ization)?

> > --

> > Regards

> > Tom

> >

> Virtual PC and Virtual Server are application programs. They run on top

> of a Windows OS. On my desktop I run Vista Business. I run VPC as an

> application under Vista. I have two vms installed under VPC, one running

> Windows XP and the other running Server 2003. These machines are virtual

> machines which use the CPU in the host machine. The CPU is "virtualized".

> VPC queues the CPU requests to the host machine's CPU.

>

> Hyper-V is a role which you can enable on Windows Server 2008 x64 with

> Hyper-V. (Note that you can purchase Server 2008 without Hyper-V. On this

> version you cannot enable the Hyper-V role). When you install the Hyper-V

> role, it enables the hypervisor which, as correctly state, sits between the

> hardware and the OS. You initial installation of Server 2008 now operates in

> the parent partition and vms are installed into child partitions. This is

> quite different from VPC and Virtual Server.

>

>

[Guest Bill Grant]

Re: Is Hyper-V too complicated for the following.

 

Yes, they run together. You can even run a domain setup in the virtual

machines. The only thing which will prevent more than one machine starting

is lack of memory in the host.

 

With 2G of memory in the host you could probably run a 2003 server and a

couple of XP guests without any trouble.

 

"ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:B8BDE8FD-FF08-41BA-8DE8-59FB0D4D0B57@microsoft.com...

> Thanks Bill, VPC looks to be simplest for me right now.

>

> You said "I have two vms installed under VPC, one running

> Windows XP and the other running Server 2003."

>

> Do these 2 OSs run simultaneously?

> I have W2003 with Terminal Services being used by 5 users currently.

>

> So down the track could I use XP for my development work AND users use

> W2003

> for production simulataneously.

>

> My understanding is that HYPER-V can support such a scenario, but what

> about

> VPC?

>

> --

> Regards

> Tom

>

>

> "Bill Grant" wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> "ThomasAJ" <ThomasAJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:240E169D-D700-4A84-A069-960B3E025DA0@microsoft.com...

>> > Does VPC mean Virtual PC?

>> >

>> > When you say "You could run it on XP or Vista" I'm confused by

>> > 'concepts'

>> > I

>> > have.

>> >

>> > I thought the term 'Virtual' refered to a mainly software based (but I

>> > know

>> > there are hardware requirements like Intel-VT for some/all?

>> > virtualizations)

>> > 'layer' that 'sits between' OSs and hardware and manages multiple OSs.

>> >

>> > So I'm not being picky I assure you, I just want to be clear at the

>> > schematic level.

>> >

>> > Also I've heard phrases like 'Hyper-V runs on W2008'. Is it just loose

>> > phrasing OR must W2008 be installed. I've seen an IBM video explaining

>> > Hyper-V on their servers and my understanding is that Hyper-V is a HAL

>> > (H'ware Abstraction Layer) sitting between the H'ware and the many OSs

>> > that

>> > run 'on top'.

>> >

>> > So the phrase 'Hyper-V runs on W2008' would be incorrect. Do I

>> > misunderstand

>> > the concepts of Virtual(ization)?

>> > --

>> > Regards

>> > Tom

>> >

>> Virtual PC and Virtual Server are application programs. They run on

>> top

>> of a Windows OS. On my desktop I run Vista Business. I run VPC as an

>> application under Vista. I have two vms installed under VPC, one running

>> Windows XP and the other running Server 2003. These machines are virtual

>> machines which use the CPU in the host machine. The CPU is "virtualized".

>> VPC queues the CPU requests to the host machine's CPU.

>>

>> Hyper-V is a role which you can enable on Windows Server 2008 x64

>> with

>> Hyper-V. (Note that you can purchase Server 2008 without Hyper-V. On

>> this

>> version you cannot enable the Hyper-V role). When you install the Hyper-V

>> role, it enables the hypervisor which, as correctly state, sits between

>> the

>> hardware and the OS. You initial installation of Server 2008 now operates

>> in

>> the parent partition and vms are installed into child partitions. This is

>> quite different from VPC and Virtual Server.

>>

>>