Comments on: Taking Microsoft’s Hyper-V R2 for a Spin http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7445/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: cwegener http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7445/#comment-6794 cwegener Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7445/#comment-6794 <p>Please stop using the terms \"Type 1\" and \"Type 2\" to delineate different hyervisors. This terminology is very misleading and the definition that you give in your article contradicts itself:<br /> \"Type 2: This type of hypervisor is installed and runs as an application inside an operating system. The operating system is not a virtual machine.\"<br /> Q: What is Hyper-V Server then? You don\'t install Hyper-V Server as an application inside an operating system .......</p> <p>For more discussion on why the Type 1/2 delineation is simply blurry:<br /> http://blog.codemonkey.ws/2007/10/myth-of-type-i-and-type-ii-hypervisors.html</p> <p>Regards<br /> Christoph Wegener </p> Please stop using the terms \”Type 1\” and \”Type 2\” to delineate different hyervisors. This terminology is very misleading and the definition that you give in your article contradicts itself:
\”Type 2: This type of hypervisor is installed and runs as an application inside an operating system. The operating system is not a virtual machine.\”
Q: What is Hyper-V Server then? You don\’t install Hyper-V Server as an application inside an operating system …….

For more discussion on why the Type 1/2 delineation is simply blurry:
http://blog.codemonkey.ws/2007/10/myth-of-type-i-and-type-ii-hypervisors.html

Regards
Christoph Wegener

]]> By: khess http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7445/#comment-6795 khess Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7445/#comment-6795 <p>Actually, Christoph, this is one of the major points of contention that I have with Hyper-V. There is a product called Hyper-V Server that is a standalone ISO that installs itself to a bare-metal system.<br /> However, if you, like I did, install Windows Server 2008 first, then install Hyper-V, it (Hyper-V) is listed there with IIS, DNS Server, Active Directory, etc. as a role. This leads one, maybe it\'s just me, to believe that adding virtualization services to this system is like adding IIS--just a service.</p> <p>I know that Hyper-V is a Type-1 hypervisor. I know this. I was just saying that once you have Windows Server 2008 already installed, it looks as if you are just installing services that allow you to run VMs.</p> <p>If instead, that it truly changes the kernel and changes the Windows 2008 Server to a paravirtualized Domain0, then it should not be a \'role\' to be installed along with IIS, AD, etc.<br /> There should, instead, be an option within Server Manager that is:<br /> Convert This System to a Hyper-V Server.<br /> That would be less misleading.</p> <p>I know that the distinction is blurry, which is why I wrote what I did and it is made more blurry by the way Hyper-V is installed on an existing system. It appears that you are simply adding services which you can see in Computer Manager under Services.</p> <p>I have had this discussion with someone from MS who read the post and wrote me about it. I\'ve also had this discussion with another tech writer who wanted me to change my second paragraph. But the correction doesn\'t need to come from my side--it needs to come from Microsoft.<br /> To me, it isn\'t clear that when you add the Hyper-V role in Windows Server 2008, that you aren\'t just adding services. Rebooting doesn\'t convince me because you have to reboot MS systems if you change the system name.</p> <p>So, to Microsoft: Clarify this conversion by moving it from Roles to some other place in Server Manager. </p> Actually, Christoph, this is one of the major points of contention that I have with Hyper-V. There is a product called Hyper-V Server that is a standalone ISO that installs itself to a bare-metal system.
However, if you, like I did, install Windows Server 2008 first, then install Hyper-V, it (Hyper-V) is listed there with IIS, DNS Server, Active Directory, etc. as a role. This leads one, maybe it\’s just me, to believe that adding virtualization services to this system is like adding IIS–just a service.

I know that Hyper-V is a Type-1 hypervisor. I know this. I was just saying that once you have Windows Server 2008 already installed, it looks as if you are just installing services that allow you to run VMs.

If instead, that it truly changes the kernel and changes the Windows 2008 Server to a paravirtualized Domain0, then it should not be a \’role\’ to be installed along with IIS, AD, etc.
There should, instead, be an option within Server Manager that is:
Convert This System to a Hyper-V Server.
That would be less misleading.

I know that the distinction is blurry, which is why I wrote what I did and it is made more blurry by the way Hyper-V is installed on an existing system. It appears that you are simply adding services which you can see in Computer Manager under Services.

I have had this discussion with someone from MS who read the post and wrote me about it. I\’ve also had this discussion with another tech writer who wanted me to change my second paragraph. But the correction doesn\’t need to come from my side–it needs to come from Microsoft.
To me, it isn\’t clear that when you add the Hyper-V role in Windows Server 2008, that you aren\’t just adding services. Rebooting doesn\’t convince me because you have to reboot MS systems if you change the system name.

So, to Microsoft: Clarify this conversion by moving it from Roles to some other place in Server Manager.

]]>