I'd like to run VMs inside Windows Server 2008, like I used to be able to with Virtual Server 2005. I looked at the Hyper-V stuff and it seems to take over the entire server. Unless I am looking at the wrong thing. I don't want that.

Is it possible virtual machines inside Windows Server 2008 R2 x64?

  • It would help if you post the existing purpose and specs of your server and specs and purposes of intended vm's. – Robin Gill Feb 22 '12 at 1:23
  • what do you mean mean by "take over the whole server"? – HostBits Feb 22 '12 at 2:06
  • You seem confused about Hyper-V. It's just a feature (aka Role) of Windows. If this is a physical server machine that you want "always running VM's" then yep Hyper-V Role is the way to go. If this is just you on your PC wanting to test stuff then Hyper-V is still good but VirtualBox is a free alternative. Google Hyper-V vs. VirtualBox I imagine. – Bret Fisher Feb 22 '12 at 2:46
  • @BretFisher You are right, I was confused. – AngryHacker Feb 22 '12 at 6:58
  • I would not recommend virtualbox as an alternative on Server 2008 or Server 2008 R2 - virtualbox is a type 2 hypervisor which is generally much slower than a type 1 hypervisor (which is what Hyper-V is; google hypervisor type to get a better understanding of the differences) – Multiverse IT Feb 22 '12 at 17:04

Hyper-V is an installable Role. It does not take over your server unless you specifically install Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008, which is different than Windows Server 2008 R2 x64. If you did install the Hyper-V Role then your server would need to be able to handle VMs inside of it and would require the appropriate Memory and processor capacity. So depending on how many VMs you would be hosting you would need to look at their requirements and determine if your current server could handle it.

Add Hyper-V

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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