Hyper-V is only available on Windows Server 2008, so I suppose you could say "it is new to Windows 2008"
Hyper-V is just a role, like any other role (AD, Web Server etc), so can be installed on any SKU that supports that role (including WS2008 Standard Core, WS2008 Enterprise Core) Cheers Ken From: Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Microsoft Hyper-V I've not seen an install of Server Core before. Is this new to Windows 2008 or part of the Hyper-V install? Ken, can you email me your presentation? Sounds like a good introduction. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Ens<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:57 AM Subject: Re: Microsoft Hyper-V However when considering patching a Core vs full OS install of the host OS, the core will probably have to be rebooted far less. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: 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 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
