Opinions on Windows Server 2016

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

I just want to know what people think about Windows Server 2016 so far, I'm upgrading the main drive in my server from a HDD to an SSD and I thought while I was at it I might as well upgrade from Windows Server 2012 to 2016, even if it is just a technical preview at this point. What do you guys think about it so far? Pros / cons over WS2012 /R2?

[Alpha_Krk]

Seems pretty decent, windows 10 with server features and an ugly windows theme(the windows only,not the taskbar)

[leadeater]

Most of the new stuff is improvements around Hyper-V, Storage Spaces, ReFS etc. Basically multi servers stuff so if none of those apply to you then there actually isn't much difference between the two.

 

I'm currently running a 2016 TP5 server and I think there might be a memory leak issue, using it as my ESX iscsi network storage so is rather annoying.

[Anthony_95]

I think Microsoft is pointing Windows Server more and more to a cloud environment, the new features of Hyper-V (Containers, Cluster update,...) and new point of view of networking as software are great for that types of infrastructure. 

 

A good aspect of that is that Server 2016 is more integrated in Azure, making easy to deploy/migrate to an hybrid cloud (current demand in my opinion) 

 

But the down side is that it's build above of Windows 10, so I'm a little scared to found some modern shit along (like the "start menu" in 2012R2). So, we'll see  

 

Have you thought about trying Nano Server ?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Anthony_95 said:

Have you thought about trying Nano Server ?

Nano server for a general server still isn't there yet. You can't just install it either, you need to build a OS installer package with the exact components and even drivers you need.

 

Also it only supports a cut down version of .Net so that limits what you can run on it by a lot.

 

I was really excited about Nano server until I went to a conference and they covered it a little more in depth. It's still a great idea for Hyper-V hosts, domain controllers, dns, dhcp etc. Those core easy server roles with very little dependencies. 

[Anthony_95]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's still a great idea for Hyper-V hosts, domain controllers, dns, dhcp etc. Those core easy server roles with very little dependencies. 

Yep I agree with you, Nano is awesome is you have to deploy several instances of one service, but in a home environment you only need one server installation and have every service you want on it

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Anthony_95 said:

Yep I agree with you, Nano is awesome is you have to deploy several instances of one service, but in a home environment you only need one server installation and have every service you want on it

We were interested in it since we have around 1000 windows server VMs, most require full .Net so that was why it was a massive let down. With nano we could have almost halved our hardware resource requirements.

[Anthony_95]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

We were interested in it since we have around 1000 windows server VMs, most require full .Net so that was why it was a massive let down. With nano we could have almost halved our hardware resource requirements.

Ohh I see what you meant, let's hope Microsoft gives more power to these frameworks in the future !

[nicco79]

On 6/7/2016 at 9:02 PM, leadeater said:

We were interested in it since we have around 1000 windows server VMs, most require full .Net so that was why it was a massive let down. With nano we could have almost halved our hardware resource requirements.

If their past actions hint towards their future actions, most likely they will expand the .Net compatibility with 2016R2.  See:  Gimpage in 2012 especially with core mode vs. Full blown awesomesauce in 2012R2 in both core and full gui mode.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, nicco79 said:

If their past actions hint towards their future actions, most likely they will expand the .Net compatibility with 2016R2.  See:  Gimpage in 2012 especially with core mode vs. Full blown awesomesauce in 2012R2 in both core and full gui mode.

A lot of the issue is not just Microsoft, tons of developers compile their applications using full .Net framework even when they are only using functions that exist in the minimal framework. Currently if you pick full it doesn't check what is actually being used and then use the most minimal possible to reduce dependencies.

[nicco79]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

A lot of the issue is not just Microsoft, tons of developers compile their applications using full .Net framework even when they are only using functions that exist in the minimal framework. Currently if you pick full it doesn't check what is actually being used and then use the most minimal possible to reduce dependencies.

Like any new IIS version, developers will get to learn how they screwed up introduced extra features in the past. 

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

A lot of the issue is not just Microsoft, tons of developers compile their applications using full .Net framework even when they are only using functions that exist in the minimal framework. Currently if you pick full it doesn't check what is actually being used and then use the most minimal possible to reduce dependencies.

I should think that this is one area that Microsoft can optimize. Optimize the compiler so that if someone selects Full .Net, but only actually requires Minimal .Net, it'll compile w/ the lesser .Net automatically.