Let me start off by saying that I am a VMware guy, but am currently looking into the Hyper-V based on the new features, abilities, cost savings in the 2012 version.
I have built out two identical HP blade servers one with Hyper-V server 2012 R2 (Base metal install with sconfig.cmd) and one with Server 2012 R2 and the Hyper-V role installed.
I wanted to run these two machines side by side to see the difference in resource utilization between the full server OS with role and just bare metal hyper-v install. After getting both of the servers built I was pretty surprised to find that there really isnt much difference between the two.
The full server 2012 install took up about 13gb worth of disk space and at idle the server sits right around 1.2 gb of used memory.
The hyper-v r2 server install took up about 8.5 gb worth of disk space and at ide the server is using 2gb of memory.
Now call me crazy but I dont see why a slimmed down bare metal install of Hyper-V should use more memory than the full server OS. Am I missing something here because with the numbers that I am seeing there is really no resource benefit to go to Hyper-V server 2012 R2?
I was thinking this was going to be comparable to an Esxi install where the resource for the hypervisor was basically nothing.
Any help would be appreciated.