To Core Mode or Not To Core Mode

we moving towards windows 2008. far have 2k8 dc in core mode , 4 other 2k8 servers in full mode installs. after finding things not work in core mode microsoft have believe leaning towards installing servers gui - services core capable.

i wondering how many others seeing benefits in core vs gui install. have found resouce consumption difference in core vs. full negliable. far attack surfaces go finding microsoft's installed default past , new per role services configuration effective full mode core.

likewise have experienced far, patches released 2008 have pretty effected core mode intalls equally full mode installs making cumbersome-ness of setting , configuring core service installs not worth effort.

how others feel this?

canadait wrote:

after finding things not work in core mode microsoft have believe leaning towards installing servers gui - services core capable.

   

perhaps point out isn't working you?

   

management

the thing have not gotten work server core nic teaming, since manufacturer of network interface card has not yet been able write drivers , management interface server core. other roles have on server core servers managed on full installations. use rsat tools on windows vista sp1 management. don't use wins.

   

initial installation

the initial installation was little bit cumbersome first time, but:

• it gets easier second, third, ..., server installed (i script actually)
• there easy ways it, like using coreconfigurator.   

      

canadait wrote:

i wondering how many others seeing benefits in core vs gui install. have found resouce consumption difference in core vs. full negliable. far attack surfaces go finding microsoft's installed default past , new per role services configuration effective full mode core.

   

i found significant differences in resource consumption.

the differences i documented while doing a comparison of hyper-v on both platforms, were:

1. load in task manager cloe nothing in server core compared full installation
   (resulting in less power consumption, less heat)
2. memory consumption 256mb lower in server core compared full installation
   (resulting in ability run whole server core installation as virtual machine)

i found hard disk space used after initial installation (8,4gb vs 1,2gb) to significant difference between server core , full installations of windows server 2008. leads significant less time while backing , installing windows servers in environments.

  

  

canadait wrote:

likewise have experienced far, patches released 2008 have pretty effected core mode intalls equally full mode installs making cumbersome-ness of setting , configuring core service installs not worth effort.

  

while recent patches might have been applicable both server core full installation microsoft announced patches applicable full installations soon. .net framework 3.5 sp1 1 such package, lead need reboot. (resulting in less availability of full installation compared server core installation)

Windows Server  >  Setup Deployment