Vista - Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 vs. Svr 2008 R2 w/Hyper-V Role

For us, the biggest advantages for Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 are that it's free,
has a lower processor and memory overhead, and has lower storage requirements
for the host OS. The biggest disadvantage is the lack of a tool to manage VMs
(without resorting to WMI scripting).

Full Server 2008 R2 has greater processor and memory overhead and will
require more storage for the OS, but can be used to run the Hyper-V
Management tools. Cost is not an issue because the license for Server 2008
allows for a host + 1 VM install as long as the host is only used for
managing VMs (i.e. no DHCP, DNS, etc.).

What difference in performance can be expected with a full Server 2008 R2
host, used to host only the Hyper-V role and management tools, compared to
Hyper-V Server?

Thanks

Rick

Performance? Nothing appreciable, IME. Memory? Probably an additional 512 Mb
in real terms. The real differences are around things like attack surface
and patch exposure. Because the Hyper-V Server has a smaller attack surface,
and fewer services running, it also has a smaller patch exposure. And
patches on the host OS mean reboots and downtime for all the VMs running
there.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




"Rick S." <RickS@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:F6BF093B-2D0C-48F2-B9D4-51C818D87D23@newsgroup