Hyper-V and vSphere storage APIs: Tailoring your virtual environment
A comprehensive collection of articles, videos and more, hand-picked by our editors
How have the options for VM storage changed with Hyper-V 3.0?
In Hyper-V versions prior to 3.0, the options for virtual machine storage are somewhat limited. If a Hyper-V server is not a part of a cluster, virtual machines usually reside on direct-attached storage (although SAN storage is supported). This could be anything from an internal storage array to individual physical hard disks.
Before the release of Hyper-V 3.0, clustered Hyper-V servers were required to use shared storage. Shared storage involves connecting individual cluster nodes to a Cluster Shared Volume through either iSCSI or Fibre Channel. Naturally, this type of storage is expensive and is typically beyond the financial reach of smaller organizations.
Microsoft has designed Hyper-V 3.0 to be much more flexible in terms of the types of storage that are supported. Even though Cluster Shared Volumes are still the preferred type of storage for Hyper-V, in Version 3.0 they are far from being the only option.
One of the new storage options involves storing virtual machines on file servers. This allows a virtual machine to make use of centrally accessible storage without requiring the organization to build a dedicated Cluster Shared Volume.
Of course, not just any file server is suitable for virtual machine storage. In fact, Microsoft requires the file server to use the SMB version 2.2 protocol, which is more robust than prior versions -- with enough extra bandwidth and resiliency against network failures that, with the upgraded protocol, Microsoft will support storing virtual machines on file servers. (The extra bandwidth comes from SMB 2.2's multichannel nature; if multiple paths exist between a source and a destination, the protocol can utilize those paths to increase the overall bandwidth.)
Related Q&A from Brien Posey
Users and management have ideas about what desktops should look and feel like, and VDI might not fit that bill. Add the upfront costs and you've got ...continue reading
Cost savings and easier management are billed as top reasons to do VDI, but the technology also has downsides, and its complexity can make it ...continue reading
Desktop patch management is subject to its share of myths. Our expert penetrates the fog around waiting on software patching and Windows XP security.continue reading
Have a question for an expert?
Please add a title for your question
Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.