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
>>
>>