Windows Server 2016: seems like 2012 Version 2

Deathmage

So I've been using Server 2016 in my home-lab more and more the past few months and it feels more like the a version of Windows Server that 2012 was meant to be from the get-go.

I'm curious if anyone else here has been playing with 2016 and can tell me if they have observed the same conclusion. I see that in 2016, Windows is way more fluid; all those service that used to be disabled are now finally removed, advanced setting actually allow for truly performance oriented setting to be turned off, so many little things I've noticed that seem to make it more of a server O/S compared to previous generations.

So far it feels like a way more stable platform than 2012.

I'm also pondering if they will be a option to upgrade from Server 2008 R2 directly to Server 2016 and skip 2012 all together.

philz1982

Well there's a ton more than just that. I like the specs on the new nano server and the added support for containers and the virtual memory add/sub on running vm's. It will be interesting how they apply this to Azure.

Balantine

My understanding is that Hyper-V is already nestable. Not sure if available in Azure yet.

Deathmage

Is 2016 going to be more of a platform toward Microsoft vision of a Microsoft Cloud integration of Azure? ...I hope it plays well with others and now a flop like Microsoft did with Windows 8.

Most companies I see just use Microsoft at it's core as a domain enabling OS with AD and normal domain services and use other already established means for enterprise operations.

I mean will it get to some point where they will have so many different services and feature that it will be a victim of it's own innovation. Case in point, Hyper-V, Microsoft totted it for years as the best and then VMware took the seat cause it was just way more stable and performed better before Microsoft realized the issues but by now VMware is probably one of the leader in that space.

I'm hoping 2016 will still, at it's core, be a server O/S, and not a vision of a server O/S coined by the same person that thought Windows 8 was the best idea ever....

Balantine

Windows has always been about the value proposition overall. You just get a lot more bang for your buck in general.

2016 is going to be about continual dogfooding updates of value. I don't know how they are going to charge for it besides telemetry (maybe it'll all be cloud and you'll pay for it that way with what you use).

I don't mean to sound too radical here but it may be the last server OS ever, because of the stability of patching.

techfiend

I was kind of surprised to not see a lot of big changes in 2016. It doesn't fit the tick-tock cycle microsoft has been doing for years. 2008 introduced a lot of major features, 2012 greatly improved on those changes and added some minor things. 2016, I haven't tried but 2012 v2 is a good way to signify it. Then again, what could they major additions could have come with 2016, any ideas?

I'm guessing 2008 to 2016 will be a popular upgrade path for the companies that wait a while but not too long, eg. the ones that updated 2003 to 2008 before 2012 R2 arrived but why upgrade? Fresh and migrate is widely considered best practice.

Deathmage

Well the problem I see is 2008 is stable, 2012 is stable. Why upgrade if there is literally no changes? ... just to be the latest version?

With all that is involved with an upgrade I'm not really seeing the value in upgrading thus far.

My co-worker and I had the discussion earlier today, we too don't see many more server O/S's cause of the fact that there is less and less innovation except for the way things look. I don't know why Microsoft keeps playing with looks and not features. it's really not making me jump like O.O if the start bar is now more fluid, it's really not worth a $1000 price increase for a sleaker looking button.

Lets be completely honest, those looks, most servers administrators strip the desktop down to gray scale bars and buttons since it uses way less resources. If Windows Server 2016 is shipped with fluid button I'll just hack the registry like I did for 2012 and make the bar gray like Server 2003 to reduce the memory usage even further....

Server administrators use basically just these applications and tools: AD related applications like DNS, DHCP, Active Directory, Group Policy Management and Print Server and then run, event viewer, PowerShell, command prompt, control panel, computer management, iSCSI initiator, ODBC, and services. That's literally about it, fancy buttons literally just add a layer of frustration... your in and your out, you lock the screen and close the console. ...Simple...

I wouldn't be surprise at that point after the registry hack if 2016 is a just a prettier looking 2012...

techfiend

I'm one that prefers 2012 over 2008's appearance. Mainly because of the increased visibility, the blue is livelier than gray but I could do without it. I usually use dark or black themes on workstations.

It would be nice if there was more modularity. 95% of the time I don't need explorer or internet explorer. Either leave them installed and keep updating them or remove desktop experience and install and restart for that 5%, mainly explorer. More and more are probably using core installs with RSAT. However, decentralizing has a tendency to add unneeded complexity.

Now that I'm getting deep into vSphere's complexity. Hyper-V could probably use more automation without affecting one of it's biggest strengths, simplicity.

Deathmage

The main reason I'll never use Hyper-V, unless Microsoft changes it, is because is has the possibility of a 'VM escape' possibility because it sits over a O/S and a unstable O/S at times.

If Windows crashes it will take hyper-v with it, I know for experience this happens more often than not since my last employer used Hyper-V for exchange and it sucked, the only reason it was deployed is Microsoft told my previous job IT person it was the best way to do it, we got VMware and it never crashed..

Mike7

Deathmage wrote: »

The main reason I'll never use Hyper-V, unless Microsoft changes it, is because is has the possibility of a 'VM escape' possibility because it sits over a O/S and a unstable O/S at times.

Not really a Windows fan boy... but..

Hyper-V is a type 1 hypervisor. With Hyper-V enabled, Windows OS becomes a special VM (Root Partition) on top of the hypervisor kernel. From https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768520%28v=bts.10%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396

To verify, create a VM with all CPUs assigned and run CPU intensive task. Your VM will be at 100% CPU while Windows (root partition VM) CPU may be less than 1%.


Windows GUI is too heavy at times to be stable. Better to use server core with Hyper-V for stability. If any case, VMware has more advantages. Just my 2 cents.

TheProf

Agreed ^

For Hyper-V, I would not install it with the GUI, I would go with the core only which will eliminate many of the vulnerabilities and the amount of patches that need to be deployed.

Hyper-V today is not what it was on Windows Server 2008, things have improved tremendously to a point where I would say that in 2012 R2 Hyper-V definitely brings value. Very important part not to forget, management of Hyper-V will be different than that of ESXi, but it doesn't mean the product does not perform well. VMware definitely is in the lead for it's hypervisor, I am not going to argue there, but I think Hyper-V is close and today, I don't think it lacks many of the functionalities that the average customer requires. After all, Azure runs on Hyper-V, so that tells you something right?

Deathmage

I stand corrected, but I just never fell into the Hyper-V lore because the stability issue at the time of the Windows Kernel and I'm now a VMware fan boy. So maybe I'm a tad bias, but can you blame me

TheProf wrote: »

Agreed ^

For Hyper-V, I would not install it with the GUI, I would go with the core only which will eliminate many of the vulnerabilities and the amount of patches that need to be deployed.

Hyper-V today is not what it was on Windows Server 2008, things have improved tremendously to a point where I would say that in 2012 R2 Hyper-V definitely brings value. Very important part not to forget, management of Hyper-V will be different than that of ESXi, but it doesn't mean the product does not perform well. VMware definitely is in the lead for it's hypervisor, I am not going to argue there, but I think Hyper-V is close and today, I don't think it lacks many of the functionalities that the average customer requires. After all, Azure runs on Hyper-V, so that tells you something right?

Guess my view of Hyper-V is advantageous of 2008 R2 era. Since then I've been VMware and haven't looked back. Guess more of a reason to get certified with Server 2012. Been doing 2008 R2 administration now for 6+ years and very good at it.

Mike7

Hyper-V is version 1 in 2008.
2012 added features such as more than 4 vCPUs, AES-NI guest support and UEFI boot.
Expect a more matured and stable version in 2016.

Deathmage wrote: »

Guess my view of Hyper-V is advantageous of 2008 R2 era. Since then I've been VMware and haven't looked back. Guess more of a reason to get certified with Server 2012. Been doing 2008 R2 administration now for 6+ years and very good at it.

Hmm, I probably will do my MCSA 2012 in 2016.

Mike7 wrote: »

To verify, create a VM with all CPUs assigned and run CPU intensive task. Your VM will be at 100% CPU while Windows (root partition VM) CPU may be less than 1%.

Off-topic. A manager insists that the above phenomenon (guest 100% CPU, host 1% CPU) means that Hyper-V is misconfigured, server hardware is faulty and wanted system engineers to fix it. Fortunately, I am not involved.

kriscamaro68

I have been running on Hyper-V 2012R2 2 months after it hit RTM in production. Have never had any downtime do to Hyper-V so that is over 2 years now that my Hyper-V environment has been up. I am also over our VMWare environment and it has been up the same amount of time on the same hardware. I like both equally and both are great in their own ways.

techfiend

Hyper-V with System Center also takes advantage of moving vm's between hosts, so much so that it gets a lot of criticism for it. They also have features like vSphere high availability and fault tolerance without many of vSphere's restrictions. I have a (mistakenly?) bad outlook on vSphere HA and see it as an afterthought once FT solves it's issues.

blargoe

For the most part, the differentiating features between 2012 R2 and 2008 R2 are not features that I use heavily. I deploy 2012 R2 primarily because I can push out any concerns about the OS going EOL to a much later date. We don't deploy anything older than 2012R2 unless there is an explicit application requirement to do so.

When Server 2016 gets 12-18 months past RTM, I will probably shift to using that OS for new builds, for the same reason.

TheProf

I'd be curious to see the adoption rate of Windows Server 2016 when it's RTM.

I would need to test with various apps like XenApp/XenDesktop, Horizon View, etc but if all is supported, I wouldn't wait much to migrate. On new XenDesktop or View deployments that I'll do, I'll push for 2016 unless certain apps dont function correctly.

The start menu is what kills me every time when I do a VDI deployment.. People go from Windows 7 to Windows 8 or 2012 R2 and get confused when they don't see the classic start menu... The work that I have to do to get it all customized is a waste of time too... So with 2016, I am hoping the adoption/acceptance rate will be much smoother with more people signing off...