I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
What makes Hyper-V a valid option in production environment? It seems lacking compared to other virtualization options.
Is there something with Windows licensing that makes attractive?
-
I ask myself this every time I see somebody suggest it.
-
It's extremely usable, stable, and has excellent virtualization performance. I haven't found it to lack anything useful in production usage. It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly) Also, it's the most compatible solution for Windows-world stuff.
The only exception to this is USB pass-through... but that's such a niche use case it really doesn't matter. In such cases it's needed, it CAN be done other ways, or to simply use KVM.
-
Also backups easy to handle on Hyper-V because the vendors all support it.
For the SMB sector you really need to only use Hyper-V or VMWare Essentials in order to get simple backups from Vendors like Veeam and Altaro.
SMB doing anything else is just crazy waste of man hours in most cases.
I love KVM. But not a single client has it in production.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Also, it's the most compatible solution for Windows-world stuff.
What specifically makes it more compatible than other hypervisors? I've run windows on several hypervisors and can't tell any difference.
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
SMB doing anything else is just crazy waste of man hours in most cases.
I love KVM. But not a single client has it in production.I would argue that XCP-ng/XS and XOCE is a massive time saver over Hyper-V and any other backup solution.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Wow so you cant use Hyper-V without a domain? Did it always use to be that way? I seem to think it didn't matter at some point?
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Why does it have to be domain joined to work in any manner that's acceptable? The fact that you have to domain join it and use a windows PC to manage it is what doesn't make sense. You can manage any other hypervisor without doing these things.
It obviously works for a lot of people, I just don't like it. It just seems ridiculous that it has to be so deeply ingrained with other windows garbage to work.
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Wow so you cant use Hyper-V without a domain? Did it always use to be that way? I seem to think it didn't matter at some point?
Of course you can. But you have to do a few extra things manually with setting up trusts and delegation rights. There is a lot of confusion on this and a lot of misinformation out there.
I do totally agree that Microsoft screwed up by not making this simpler.
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever for that to be a negative. In no way can I think of could it be a negative for an existing AD infrastructure environment.
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Wow so you cant use Hyper-V without a domain? Did it always use to be that way? I seem to think it didn't matter at some point?
Of course you can. But you have to do a few extra things manually with setting up trusts and delegation rights. There is a lot of confusion on this and a lot of misinformation out there.
I do totally agree that Microsoft screwed up by not making this simpler.
I guess if you aren't using AD, you probably aren't too fond of MS and are unlikely to use Hyper-V.
So i can agree on that point.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Why does it have to be domain joined to work in any manner that's acceptable? The fact that you have to domain join it and use a windows PC to manage it is what doesn't make sense. You can manage any other hypervisor without doing these things.
It obviously works for a lot of people, I just don't like it. It just seems ridiculous that it has to be so deeply ingrained with other windows garbage to work.
It doesn't have to be. I've got a Hyper-V host off domain working as easily as if it's on the domain. No issues at all, and was almost as quick to set up. The extra steps are minimal... but that's just how all MS stuff is. Try managing ANY Windows machine remotely when off the domain... it's just how that stuff works. Get used to it, learn it, or don't use it.
-
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
don't use it.
:thumbs_up:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It doesn't have to be. I've got a Hyper-V host off domain working as easily as if it's on the domain. No issues at all, and was almost as quick to set up. The extra steps are minimal...
They aren't minimal. They are confusing as shit and it's stupid. They aren't anywhere as easy as ANY other hypervisor.
In fact, I don't even know why people say this. It's ridiculous. If you aren't using an existing AD infrastructure you should never be recommending Hyper-V as the hypervisor.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
don't use it.
:thumbs_up:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It doesn't have to be. I've got a Hyper-V host off domain working as easily as if it's on the domain. No issues at all, and was almost as quick to set up. The extra steps are minimal...
They aren't minimal. They are confusing as shit and it's stupid. They aren't anywhere as easy as ANY other hypervisor.
You are cracking me up, man.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
don't use it.
:thumbs_up:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It doesn't have to be. I've got a Hyper-V host off domain working as easily as if it's on the domain. No issues at all, and was almost as quick to set up. The extra steps are minimal...
They aren't minimal. They are confusing as shit and it's stupid. They aren't anywhere as easy as ANY other hypervisor.
That's why I simply join it to the existing domain like you would anything else and be done with it. It's a non-issue, and only provides benefits.
If you don't have an AD domain, or Hyper-V... what's the problem? None of this applies to you.
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Also backups easy to handle on Hyper-V because the vendors all support it.
For the SMB sector you really need to only use Hyper-V or VMWare Essentials in order to get simple backups from Vendors like Veeam and Altaro.
SMB doing anything else is just crazy waste of man hours in most cases.
I love KVM. But not a single client has it in production.
This pretty much answers my original question, btw.
But I do see @bnrstnr point of view as well. I am not a fan of Hyper-V either.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
If you don't have an AD domain, or Hyper-V... what's the problem? None of this applies to you.
I do have an AD domain, and I still choose not to use it. Nobody ever trusts MS anywhere else, and there is nothing but hate towards them, yet everybody on here recommends Hyper-V, it doesn't make sense to me.
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
What are they using?
