So Carl's not allowed to ask more than one question per post. I think your attitude is the bad attitude. They must be giving MVP status to anyone in OZ nowadays...
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 9:10 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Standalone Hyper-V vs. 2008 Hyper-V From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 16 September 2008 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Standalone Hyper-V vs. 2008 Hyper-V But what is the advantage to spending the resources (RAM, disk) on even a 2008 Server Core config to run the Hyper-V host, when my other choice is to save those resources for the actual VMs and use the standalone Hyper-V server instead? What feature in Hyper-V host services under 2008 makes it advantageous to use that instead of standalone Hyper-V server, for the functional requirement I've outlined? Answer the question or say "I don't know". This wasn't your original question. Please take your attitude somewhere else For reference, your original question was: Why would I NOT prefer to use standalone Hyper-V for all virtualized servers including 2008? And the answer to that is "it depends". You go figure it out for yourself. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
