VPC on Server 2003 (actually, SBS)?

[Milhouse Van Houten]

I see that Server 2003 is a supported Host OS for VPC, but SBS isn't
specifically mentioned. Ordinarily that wouldn't be significant to me except
I notice in the specs for Virtual Server that it does mentioned SBS
specifically.

Which makes more sense to install on SBS? All I want to do with it is run a
couple client OS's (XP) on the same domain as SBS.

[kj [SBS MVP]]

SBS with it's 4GB max Physical memory and usual compliment of installed
services is already 'taxed' and not really a good candidate for another on
board memory intensive application.

You would be better to have a beefy host (64bit with lots of memory) running
Virtual Server (or Hyper-V) and SBS running as a guest OS. Still there would
be some restrictions with Support for ISA and potentially FAX services.

--
/kj

[Milhouse Van Houten]

"kj [SBS MVP]" <Kevin...@SPAMFREE.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eG9Xot26...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

That would have to wait until the new SBS to take advantage of the
performance gains in Hyper-V, and even then SBS is the main purpose of the
server, so I'm not sure it would be best served virtualized.

The XP clients I had in mind would really only be a sideline, lightly used,
maybe even only one at a time and usually after hours, and only taking about
256MB each. It shouldn't affect the server much at all, which only has a
handful of people connecting to it.

I just don't know which of the two products, VS or VPC, is more naturally
suited to be installed on Server, SBS particularly.

[kj [SBS MVP]]

Consider that VPC runs under the context of the logged on user and does not
automatically start if the host is restarted.

Virtual Server runs as a service and can be configured to auto start guests.

SBS runs well virtualized given adequate host resources.

--
/kj