I'm not sure if the attack surface risk is worth it, but I can see a valid argument for virtualizing even machines designed to host on a single VM simply to abstract them from the underlying platform.
Migrating to more powerful hardware, disaster recovery, mgm't, etc... are all eased significantly when the machine is virtual. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:54 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMware --> Hyper-v > > Live Migration between non-clustered hosts? What version of Hyper-V is > this?!? > > Frankly, I would not enable the hypervisor when you don't need it. The > entire movement towards *minimising* attack surface means installing the > least that you are able to get away with. Why install something you don't > need? > > Cheers > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Peck [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 7 April 2010 2:11 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: VMware --> Hyper-v > > I recently went to a one day HP/Microsoft overview demo of HyperV. I will > say that it's come a long way. With the Live Migration between non- > clustered hosts and then setting up guest systems as a cluster resource if we > were starting from scratch I wouldn't hesitate to test HyperV. > > We have over 50 VMware hosts in house it doesn't make sense to make the > switch unless VMware really irritates us during our next contract renewal. If > they do, HyperV is a real option. > > With SP1 they have the memory improvements coming in as well. > http://blogs.technet.com/virtualization/ > > One of the things the class did convince me of was that any of our new > physical servers with 2008r2 we should enable the hypervisor for them to aid > in moving them if we have to later. > > Steven > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think you'll find it very effective for your needs. > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> You've nailed our scenario exactly. We're a small business with < > >> 100 employees and no extraordinary HA requirements. The key VMware > >> feature we use is vMotion, but now that live migration is baked into > >> Hyper-v Server it makes the Microsoft virtualization platform a > >> viable option for us. > >> > >> I have one 'extra' blade that I've installed Hyper-V Server on and > >> have an iSCSI target on another machine for storage. I'm going to > >> put a second copy of Hyper-V on a different machine today and start > >> testing everything in earnest. Our DBA wants to play with the CTP of > >> SQL 2008 R2 so I've given him a VM on the Hyper-V server that he can > >> RDP into. All he knows is that it's a VM. It'll be interesting to > >> see if he says anything about speed, etc. > >> > >> As far as SCVMM goes, it looks like the "Workgroup Edition" is tailor > >> made for us. $505 for 5 hosts and all the necessary licenses are > >> included. > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
