To be honest, in my experience you might get a few hundred MB of RAM back by running Core rather than a full install. Unless you have a few VM hosts, it's not worth worrying about either way.
Performance is good - very good compared to Virtual Server 2005 However there are a few drawbacks: - No real management tools yet (SCVMM vNext is required for managing Hyper-v) - A few bugs (e.g. with TCP Offload and the new NICs) - No ability to build VMs using PXE booting and using the new synthetic NICs ( you need to use a legacy NIC) If you want a drill-down into Hyper-V architecture, I did a presentation for my local user group on it that I can send to you direct. Cheers Ken From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 7:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Microsoft Hyper-V It is light-years ahead of where Microsoft's VM technology has been. You want to use it on top of Server Core as opposed to the standard server install to keep your parent OS from using all your resources. I'm sure you'll have many longs days of fun with it. Tim From: Sauvigne, Craig M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Microsoft Hyper-V Has anyone been playing with Hyper-V from Microsoft? If so, what are your impressions? Since it is rolled into our licensing for Server 2008 anyway, we are looking at it for virtualization. It seems like it has a lot of the same features and functions as VMWare and ESX. I am just now setting up a test box for it. Any hints, tips or tricks to it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ==================== Craig M. Sauvigne System Administrator Winthrop University Rock Hill, SC 29733 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SC143 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
