Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've read a few similar questions but wasn't clear. I have a small office (13) users and recently purchased a new single server (this is all I have to work with for now).

Server specs

  • Memory - 16G
  • Drives - 6 SCSI (2TB)
  • Processor - Dual Quad Core

I plan on making the Hyper-V host the DC and then 2 VMs, one for a file server and the other an application server.

Question - since I am restricted to this single server, would it be a big issue making the Hyper-V host the domain controller?

Your input greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 11 down vote accepted

While the scenario you describe would work, the "best practice" approach is to not run any roles on the Hyper-V host other than Hyper-V; all services should run on virtual machines running on the Hyper-V host.

The hardware you describe should be more than capable of running three Hyper-V hosts; especially since a dedicated DC for 13 users would require minimal disk and memory resources.

The best option would be to obtain a single Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise license; this would entitle you to install the Hyper-V role on the hardware as well as up to four additional virtual instances of Windows Server 2008 R2 running on your Hyper-V host with no additional licensing cost.

If, however, you plan to use existing licenses for your application and file servers, another option would be to install Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 on the hardware to host your virtual servers. Hyper-V Server is free to download and use; however, no licensing is included, so any virtual machines you create must be individually licensed. Hyper-V Server is based upon Server Core, so the footprint and exposed surface area are very small. The UI provided with Hyper-V Server will assist in configuration of the machine for remote management; in this scenario, you will create and manage virtual machines on Hyper-V Server using the Hyper-V Manager MMC from your workstation. (Microsoft provides good information on this topic in the Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 Getting Started Guide)

share|improve this answer
3  
Agreed, although the standalone Hyper-V hypervisor is totally free, and comes with all of the features you would require for the number of VMs being talked about here. –  Mark Henderson May 18 '10 at 22:46
2  
Good point, Farseeker... while Enterprise licensing would offer both expandability and flexibility, those features may not be valued--particularly if Saif has already obtained two Windows 2008 Standard licenses! A good approach would be to deploy Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 on the hardware and install two Windows 2008 Standard virtual machines; the Active Directory role could then be added to the file server virtual machine. –  jnaab May 18 '10 at 22:55
    
And go with the Core installation for the host. Minimizes the host utilization and management factor. –  Holocryptic May 18 '10 at 22:56
1  
@Holocryptic, Hyper-V Server doesn't have a core type install, it's already more stripped down than core. MS chose poor names for the OS and the Service. –  Chris S May 19 '10 at 0:48
1  
You can install Server 2008 R2 in either a "full install" with Hyper-V (convenient if you plan to manage things from the host partition) or a "core install" with the Hyper-V role; doing so provides you with additional functionality and licensing rights depending on whether you use Standard, Enterprise, or Datacenter editions. The discussion above focuses on "Hyper-V Server 2008 R2" which is a separate free-to-download-and-use product that has a (rather robust) subset of the functionality and limited licensing rights. It is not a "core install" but is "core-like" in that it has a minimal UI. –  jnaab May 19 '10 at 18:54

If I understand correctly you are talkling about hyper-v Server 2008 (not Windows Server 2008 with hyper-v role enabled). If so I think you will have no domain until you have the DC running within one of the VMs.

To administer the hypervisor (using Hyper-V manager MMC from your workstation) you will need to set up a workgroup to manage the VM's until they are running. It can be done (that's how I manage my hyper-v server at home) but you will probably need to use the HVRemote power shell scripts to get it setup.

Hope that makes sense.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 For mentioning the annoying issues with actually getting connected management to a Hyper-V Server that's not yet in a domain... kinda catch 22 thingie when you "need" a domain to easily managed Hyper-V Server but you need to manage it to set up a virtual DC and domain ^^ –  Oskar Duveborn May 19 '10 at 12:52
    
I am talking about Windows Server 2008 with hyper-v role enabled. I want to make that server a primary DC, then just add 2 additional VMs. –  Saif Khan May 20 '10 at 1:36

Works, but I would NOT Move the file server to a vm - what for?

I have a similar setup(just 2 computers) here, and I use the DC also as file server. As all file acces is via DFS anyway (so the server name is never part of file access) this has no negatives, and I save having a VM just to provide a function that is core to the OS anyway.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.