Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2
-
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
It looks a lot harder than it really is.
Agreed - this is a pretty shitty setup. ESXi is super damned easy compared to this convoluted BS!
-
With my little XS adventure earlier this week, it reminded me how truly simple XS/XC/XO is.
Hyper-V really does need such a thing. Such a free thing.
-
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
With my little XS adventure earlier this week, it reminded me how truly simple XS/XC/XO is.
Hyper-V really does need such a thing. Such a free thing.
I'm thinking once SSH is fully built into Windows, it will be much easier.
As of now, I'm able to use PowerShell Core to do
Enter-PSSessionfrom Linux TO Windows. Which helps when I'm writing PowerShell scripts in VSCode on Linux, and need to do real tests on a Windows machine... being able to do that is huge time saver.I don't think it's far off until it's part of all Windows and Hyper-V as well.
-
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
With my little XS adventure earlier this week, it reminded me how truly simple XS/XC/XO is.
Hyper-V really does need such a thing. Such a free thing.
Do doubt!
ESXi and XS both have a web interface to manage them that is super simple and GUI enabled and crazy easy to understand (at least the basics - disk, RAM, etc) Hyper-V is anything but. You have to manage it with at least two different panes of glass (Hyper-V manager and Computer Manager) if not more.
Of course Scott will say you can manage it 100% with PS, which is likely true, but in a 1-3 host environment, that's rarely worth learning, other than learning for learning sake.
-
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Hyper-V is anything but. You have to manage it with at least two different panes of glass (Hyper-V manager and Computer Manager) if not more.
Eh? Have you seen WAC yet? That's insanely functional for managing Hyper-V infrastructure...
-
Setting up a hyper v server outside of a domain is just as much fun, completely redicolous really. ESXI and XS are a lot quicker to get up and going with.
-
@stuartjordan said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Setting up a hyper v server outside of a domain is just as much fun, completely redicolous really. ESXI and XS are a lot quicker to get up and going with.
Yes, a lot more steps need to take place on Hyper-V (all relating to remotely accessing and managing it)... due to using Kerberos and all that for authentication and access... versus everything else that just simply uses SSH. But looks like MS is moving in that direction.
-
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
With my little XS adventure earlier this week, it reminded me how truly simple XS/XC/XO is.
Hyper-V really does need such a thing. Such a free thing.
Do doubt!
ESXi and XS both have a web interface to manage them that is super simple and GUI enabled and crazy easy to understand (at least the basics - disk, RAM, etc) Hyper-V is anything but. You have to manage it with at least two different panes of glass (Hyper-V manager and Computer Manager) if not more.
Of course Scott will say you can manage it 100% with PS, which is likely true, but in a 1-3 host environment, that's rarely worth learning, other than learning for learning sake.
Web Interlace for XS or XCP-NG isn’t available ready to go after install complete compare to ESXi.
Windows Admin Center can manage Hyper-V.
Plus it’s a lot easier to setup Hyper-V 2016 in a workgroup environment compare to Hyper-V 2012 R2.
-
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@emad-r said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Wow thats more difficult than setting up Linux KVM..
To the point that why would you want to do this.If you are an All Windows Shop, why would you want to have another technology tossed in?
Hyper-V isn't Windows. Hyper-V might come from MS, but that isn't at all the same as not being another technology. In Hyper-V or KVM's case, you are equally adding "another technology", even if you are a 100% Windows shop. So the logic of KVM is simpler remains more important there, as you need another tech regardless.
-
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
I'm not saying you're wrong, there are just places that prefer to stick to one vendor/tech tree.
That's not a reason. Preferring to stick to one vendor is not something that should affect a business (and ergo IT.) Evaluating sticking to a vendor to see if it is beneficial, yes. Just "liking having fewer vendors" is emotions and our job to protect against. Given the lack of integration, the lack of crossover skills, the higher learning curves, and the lower support options, Hyper-V is pretty difficult to justify here. There are reasons, for sure, but they realistically can't be legitimate reasons when presented as "single vendor" or "all MS." Those aren't valid business concerns.
Our staff already knows Hyper-V, MS through in free Hyper-V support, we see value in a third party plug in that works with Hyper-V... these are reasons to consider it. All valid reasons lead to bottom line improvements in business (and therefore IT.)
-
@obsolesce said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@emad-r said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Wow thats more difficult than setting up Linux KVM..
To the point that why would you want to do this.If you are an All Windows Shop, why would you want to have another technology tossed in?
I'm not saying you're wrong, there are just places that prefer to stick to one vendor/tech tree.
Yeah it's pretty simple if you're already using a MS AD domain and have GP set up to pretty much make it all plug-n-play, then you don't have to worry about any of this stuff.
If you are already using a domain and if this decision will never affect a decision to keep said domain. Has to be both.
-
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
It looks a lot harder than it really is.
Agreed - this is a pretty shitty setup. ESXi is super damned easy compared to this convoluted BS!
ESXi is the easiest, but the gap between ESXi and KVM is pretty darn small.
-
@obsolesce said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Hyper-V is anything but. You have to manage it with at least two different panes of glass (Hyper-V manager and Computer Manager) if not more.
Eh? Have you seen WAC yet? That's insanely functional for managing Hyper-V infrastructure...
That'll be the way to go once people are up to date on it.
-
@stuartjordan said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
Setting up a hyper v server outside of a domain is just as much fun, completely redicolous really. ESXI and XS are a lot quicker to get up and going with.
And KVM is in between the two. Easier than XS, harder than ESXi.
-
@black3dynamite said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@dashrender said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
With my little XS adventure earlier this week, it reminded me how truly simple XS/XC/XO is.
Hyper-V really does need such a thing. Such a free thing.
Do doubt!
ESXi and XS both have a web interface to manage them that is super simple and GUI enabled and crazy easy to understand (at least the basics - disk, RAM, etc) Hyper-V is anything but. You have to manage it with at least two different panes of glass (Hyper-V manager and Computer Manager) if not more.
Of course Scott will say you can manage it 100% with PS, which is likely true, but in a 1-3 host environment, that's rarely worth learning, other than learning for learning sake.
Web Interlace for XS or XCP-NG isn’t available ready to go after install complete compare to ESXi.
Windows Admin Center can manage Hyper-V.
Plus it’s a lot easier to setup Hyper-V 2016 in a workgroup environment compare to Hyper-V 2012 R2.
WAC looks great, but requiring a Windows 2016 Server to do it means it's non-trivial for an SMB.
-
One other thing to mention ... might want to change the time zone, if needed.
-
QUESTION:
Let's say you have 3 NICs in the server, and you give them static addresses of 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.3
When you team them, the multiplexor adapter is created.
This then gets its own static IP address?
I keep losing connection here at this step, and I can fix it, but might be worth a small discussion on...
-
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
QUESTION:
Let's say you have 3 NICs in the server, and you give them static addresses of 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.3
When you team them, the multiplexor adapter is created.
This then gets its own static IP address?
I keep losing connection here at this step, and I can fix it, but might be worth a small discussion on...
No, when you team them the static addressing is lost. The best thing to do is have everything DHCP and then team. The team will pull an IP and then you can make it static.
-
@jaredbusch said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
QUESTION:
Let's say you have 3 NICs in the server, and you give them static addresses of 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.3
When you team them, the multiplexor adapter is created.
This then gets its own static IP address?
I keep losing connection here at this step, and I can fix it, but might be worth a small discussion on...
No, when you team them the static addressing is lost. The best thing to do is have everything DHCP and then team. The team will pull an IP and then you can make it static.
Ah, that's what was confusing me. Yes, I agree.
@Dashrender might want to add that in if you want...
-
@jaredbusch said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
@brrabill said in Building a Hyper-V 2016 host Take 2:
QUESTION:
Let's say you have 3 NICs in the server, and you give them static addresses of 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.3
When you team them, the multiplexor adapter is created.
This then gets its own static IP address?
I keep losing connection here at this step, and I can fix it, but might be worth a small discussion on...
No, when you team them the static addressing is lost. The best thing to do is have everything DHCP and then team. The team will pull an IP and then you can make it static.
Just to confirm ... if you set them all, it means nothing?
AKA, those static addresses all disappear?
