Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

Which Virtual system is better


Don W
 Share

Recommended Posts

I currently have a copy of WHS 2011 installed in VMware that is installed on Windows 7 Ultimate and it is working fine and I have a couple questions.

 

I read the excellent article you posted about how to install Microsoft HyperV on a USB thumbdrive and I was wondering if I would see any gains in going that route instead of VMware on top of WIndows 7??? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each? VMware was really easy to install and it looked like HyperV was a little more indepth to setup but if the gains are worth it I will consider switching.

 

Can I / should I install a second network card, one for WHS and the second for Media Center??

 

Thanks,

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think hyper-v is more involved than vmware. s2008r2 with the hyper-v role would be more similar to vmware. NOw for which is better, that is kind of like ford verse chevy, nike verse reebok, MS verse well, that really isn't even close.

 

I am not sure about vmware but for s2008r2 and the one everyone is using for the super router, a separate NIC for each VM is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say VirtualBox is the easiest; VMWare requires as much effort to learn as Hyper-V as a function of Server 2008. VMWare on top of Win7 will have more hardware overhead than a bare metal Hyper-V install and even more than Hyper-V on top of full blown Server 2008 (as long as you aren't installing any other functions.)

 

Agreed with the which is better answer; it all depends. I certainly wouldn't say Hyper-V is better than VMWare. I started with VMWare in a business environment. It's just that I'm using only MS operating systems at home (well, virtualized anyway) and as a TechNet subscriber I can use the host Server 2008R2 for free, so that was the most effective for me.

 

I'd probably go the ESXi route if I weren't using Hyper-V. Potentially Xenserver if I were going Linux or BSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest no-control

Hyper-V benefits from the Microsoft Driver stack so just about any hardware certified for use on windows 7 /2008R2 will install without issue. ESXi doesn't and has a very strict list of what components can and will work.

 

Hyper-V Server (free version) is a bit harder to setup in a workgroup environment. In an active directory environment its a snap to setup. so while you need to run a few lines in the cmd prompt. To establish a user account and trusted link to the server (automagic with AD) so you can connect with authoritative credentials. Aside from that the walk through is step by step and very easy to setup.

 

Personally I prefer Hyper-V to ESXi for how I use it. If you're looking to do a lot of linix type VM's (NAS, etc) you might be better off with ESXi as limited drivers for *nix are usually what the ESXi stuff requires anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you have access to technet/server2008r2, go Hyper-V. If you don't go VirtualBox.

 

I used to run my VMs in VMWare Server on Win7, but have since moved to Hyper-V and never looked back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion:

 

ESXi for large businesses as the standard - VMWare Server & HyperV for SMB's and the home tech nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyper-V benefits from the Microsoft Driver stack so just about any hardware certified for use on windows 7 /2008R2 will install without issue. ESXi doesn't and has a very strict list of what components can and will work.

 

Hyper-V Server (free version) is a bit harder to setup in a workgroup environment. In an active directory environment its a snap to setup. so while you need to run a few lines in the cmd prompt. To establish a user account and trusted link to the server (automagic with AD) so you can connect with authoritative credentials. Aside from that the walk through is step by step and very easy to setup.

 

Personally I prefer Hyper-V to ESXi for how I use it. If you're looking to do a lot of linix type VM's (NAS, etc) you might be better off with ESXi as limited drivers for *nix are usually what the ESXi stuff requires anyway.

would you say HV Server is enough faster than HV on top of 2008R2 to make it worth the extra effort in a workgroup environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks. Kinda makes the choice pretty easy, at least in a non-domain environment.

 

I generally agree, the performance difference - at least for the average home user - is probably not great enough to make it worth the extra hassle assuming you have technet and can get the "full" windows server 2008 with hyper-v for free. However, one additional advantage of the bare-metal Hyper-V server is security. Much smaller "attack surface" since it's running fewer services than the full windows server. Again, maybe not enough to warrant the extra hassle but it is an advantage. (how much of an advantage is open for debate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...