1

I'm building a Hyper-V host using Windows Server 2012. It will be hosting 3 Hyper-V images.

I have a SSD and a larger standard HD. I cannot fit everything on the SSD.

Performance wise, will I be better off using the SSD for the host OS, or using it for the VHDs?

2 Answers 2

2

Put the host OS on a partition on the standard HD. Leave some space on the standard HD for VM overflow... even if you can fit all of the VMs on the SSD right now, you need to expect some growth.

Then put as much of the VM's as you can on the SSD. This may mean using multiple VHD's per VM, to separate the VM OS from the application hosted on that OS. If you have some applications that lend themselves to this, begin this process now, even if you can fit the whole VM on the SSD. It will make it easier to move later.

1
  • The VM workload could even be broken down into OS and data. All the OS disks, host and guest, could go on the HDD and the VHDs for data could go on the SSD.
    – john
    Jul 17, 2015 at 22:05
2

You could use Storage Spaces to create two pools; one for SSD and one for HDD and allow SS to migrate the data around based on its IO requirements. I know for a fact this works great in a file-services system, I've not tried it with HV but there's no reason to assume it won't.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .