Windows server 2008 core or ubuntu server?

Question

ubuntu

We have:
Mother: Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 Proc
: Intel Core i5-660 3.33Ghz
RAM: 8Gb (4x2Gb) DDR3 PC12800 1600Mhz HyperX
HDD: 2x1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200/12 Cache 32Mb 3Gb/s combined in raid 1, and one more the same hdd for backups.
Task:
It is necessary that 3 virtual terminal servers Windows 2003 Server work on this computer. Now it is 2 physical working servers + 1 new one.
The question arose of how to implement this better:
Install a Windows server 2008 core on a new computer and organize 3 virtual servers under Hyper-V on it, or install an ubuntu server and VMware or VirtualBox and organize it already on it?
i.e. 2 servers will be transferred from physical computers, and one more will be installed from scratch.
As for the tasks performed by terminal servers:
20 users in total (10-12 at the same time), each has a standard office suite: Word + Excel and 1C 8 Trade and Accounting.
Corel is rarely used.
Question: In what variant will all this be more productive?
PS: Let's omit the issue of licenses, it's not about them.

Answer 1

In addition to VMWare / VirtualBox, there is a wonderful xen, but if you need to virtualize Windows, then I would definitely use Hyper-V. But I would not install Server Core, but Hyper-V Server , since no tasks are planned on the host except for performing gusts. Moreover, it is free, licenses are needed only for operating systems installed on the guest.

Answer 2

I would do on XEN.
For simplicity, you can take Proxmox (a ready-made linux distribution with openvz + xen), everything is simply configured through the web interface, the HA cluster can be assembled, also with a couple of clicks.

Answer 3

If I were you, I would take a closer look at VMWare ESX (ESXi), in terms of performance it will be an order of magnitude better.

Answer 4

Something tells me that built-in virtualization will be more productive than third-party solutions.

Answer 5

I recommend looking towards the full-fledged Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Standard/Enterprise, because you can install the Hyper-V Manager management console directly on the server and manage virtual machines by connecting to the virtualization server directly or via RDP. If you are using Hyper-V Server R2, you will need a separate Windows 7/Windows Server 2008 R2 machine to install the management console on. In addition, if you do not plan to enter this server into a domain, then you will have to suffer a little with setting up remote access.
As for the other options (VMware ESXi/Xen Server), you may have problems supporting the network controller and organizing RAID1 on the integrated controller.
As for performance issues, for your situation, VMware ESXi may be more preferable, which, due to the support of Transparent Page Sharing technology, will significantly save RAM, especially when using the same type of virtual machines, such as terminal servers on Win 2003. However, if you plan to switch to Win 2008 terminal servers, then there will not be such a significant difference in saving memory.

Answer 6

I myself am thinking about Hyper-V Server precisely for the reason that there will be nothing on the host except virtualization, and the guest axes are all windows. But it’s a little confusing administration of it - remotely from under win vista / 7
I’m interested in comparing the performance of Hyper-V Server vs ... here are the options I’m looking for ...

Answer 7

would do it on VMware ESXi

Answer 8

In my opinion, with such a small load, it will fly everywhere, I didn’t understand how you can use the core in the terminal, it’s pretty stressful.