I was asking about standalone Hyper-V some time ago and looks like it's almost here.
http://windowsitpro.com/mobile/pda/Article.cfm?ArticleID=100238 <http://windowsitpro.com/mobile/pda/Article.cfm?ArticleID=100238&DepartmentI D=723> &DepartmentID=723 Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 for testing and installed the Hyper-V features and much to my newbie surprise, my 2008 server was not converted to a virtual instance of itself. I understand the reason for that now. The question boils down to, wouldn't I want all instances of servers on a hardware platform to be running on the "bare metal" hypervisor if possible? One of the goals of virtualizing is easy portability to run on alternate/standby hardware, and the 2008 Hyper-V host server isn't portable. That means not using the host server for anything but a host server, and that's a waste of a license. Am I missing anything? Why would I NOT prefer to use standalone Hyper-V for all virtualized servers including 2008? Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
