Hyper-V Server 2022


Anyone know whether there will be a Hyper-V Server 2022? i.e. the free version which is just for running VMs and has no GUI?


I've seen mentions on forums that this SKU is being dropped, but not found anything official.



196 Replies

Hi All,

I fully agree with @imschmidt  and @BrianMartin.


We're facing complete upgrade of our infra from 2012R2 next year. If there is no hyper-v 2022 SKU, we'll probably move fully to VMWare. Azure Stack HCI is completely useless to us! The same goes for our clients. But all has already been said above.


This decision was made by someone who has never heard about SMB clients and their scenarios or is just after Azure money and doesn't care at all about the customers and MSPs.


PS: Did you even consider the homelabs? There are 1000s of Microsoft professionals with home lab enviroments for testing and LEARNING new stuff. And it was already said, homelab "must" always run "the latest and greatest" stuff. So what now? Take a vmware/xcp/proxmox path or wait if MS will make hyper-v 2022 SKU available the same way as 2019?


@chroust The problem (and fear) I posed to Elden (MS HV team) is that they will realize the mistake in doing this only long after we've all started the process of migrating to other platforms. If they are going to reverse course on this, it would be wise to do so soon. This kind of bell will be very hard to un-ring once the masses get moving on migrating to other platforms, not to mention any new systems folks will be rolling out which will start their life as XCP or vmware.


I already tasked one of my engineers with getting a lab environment with XCP-ng on it so we can start this whole decision making process on which platform we will replace HV with.

Whatever happened to Hyper-V Server and other Windows Server 2022 questions | ZDNet


"One of the biggest (and hardest to get answered) questions about Server 2022 among readers has been whether Microsoft also is planning to offer a standalone Hyper-V Server 2022 product as part of this release. Hyper-V Server 2019 is a free, GUI-less product optimized for running virtual machines.

I found the answer buried in the Microsoft Technical Community forums. Spoiler alert: It's a no from Microsoft."

@Brian Martin 


Same, XCP-ng backup looks impressive, certainly more so than anything Hyper-V has to offer. 

We just finished the upgrade cycle for our own systems, and clients. That will give us plenty of time to test the system and train staff for the next one. 


I've always wanted to get serious with the platform, this decision by Microsoft is without question the push I needed to convince myself this is the way to go forward. 

@Mirza Dedic 


This announcement/change has nothing to do with the Hyper-V role of Windows Server 2022.  The role and associated features are still available

I absolutely agree here with all your comments.

Let's just say we run 500 HyperV servers with Veeam to allow clients to replicate the main OS to a hot-spare cluster. If the plan is to EOL this product we need to start to plan the move away now and I will run you through why.

Let's do some numbers for all to see based on future processor core count averages. In the last quarter, we have seen a huge shift to AMD 32 based processors, specifically the extremely powerful AMD EPYC 7543.

Now we are from Australia where the price per core is $14 aud.

64 Cores x $14 = $896 per month

500 servers = $448k extra a month for servers that currently cost us just the Windows Servers SPLA licencing which as you have started still will continue to be charged.

Yes, we are a large cloud hosting provider in Australia the numbers are legit a concern. I am sure Veeam is going to have a big say about where they head and well everyone else. SPLA licencing was already a joke and now this is icing on the cake.

P.S Your SPLA licencing is also a joke where under the agreement clients are forced to licence all SOE Windows AND Linux VM's. It's epic trying to explain to clients that even though they are running a VMware server and they have 10 Linux VM's and a single Windows VM the clients are required to licence ALL SOE. Yes, that means all 11 virtual machines :)

Happy to be corrected on any of the above



I suspect that open source will find more developers given that Redmond lacks any real sustained commitment for a technology.


I personally used Linux from the get go and BSD before that so open source has been on my radar for quite some time now.


Hyper-V will still work but maybe its time to dump it on github and let the community maintain it


The Hyper-V feature is critical to Microsoft, as part of Windows Server, Windows client, XBox, the Azure Stack family, and the foundation for Azure. Hyper-V feature is being heavily innovated and invested in. I recognize it's confusing with the naming, but what is being discussed here in this thread is the free 'Microsoft Hyper-V Server' SKU. Which is a free OS download just for running VMs. The Hyper-V feature is not going anywhere and no assumptions should be made otherwise.

We all understand you are talking about the non-windows hyper-v server.

Stop pretending like this is a "nothing change" that impacts freeloaders only.

One Windows server with millions of blade servers can all run billions of Linux VMs easily. With Hyper-V and PowerShell its not hard to do.

Redmond wants more on premises to move to data centers where profits are higher for Azure.

@Elden Christensen wrote:
The Hyper-V feature is critical to Microsoft, as part of Windows Server, Windows client, XBox, the Azure Stack family, and the foundation for Azure. Hyper-V feature is being heavily innovated and invested in. I recognize it's confusing with the naming, but what is being discussed here in this thread is the free 'Microsoft Hyper-V Server' SKU. Which is a free OS download just for running VMs. The Hyper-V feature is not going anywhere and no assumptions should be made otherwise.


It's still confusing I bet for some, even the way even you stated just now. A more clear definition would be:

Hyper-V exists as a ROLE/FEATURE you can enable on a full GUI Windows operating system. Hyper-V ALSO exists as a dedicated operating system in of itself (no GUI) where it's express purpose is to run VM's and nothing else. Hyper-V "The Operating System" is what is going away. The Hyper-V "Role/Feature" is not going away.


-Obviously I am still in the "We really need the Hyper-V Server the OS" camp as articulated previously.

@Elden Christensen 


So let's get this clear.


Will any Hypr-V or future releases have charges associated with CPU Cores on top of the Windows Licencing? 


A nice simple question :)


@Elden Christensen wrote:
what is being discussed here in this thread is the free 'Microsoft Hyper-V Server' SKU. Which is a free OS download just for running VMs. 

I think that everyone in this thread already knows this, and this is what is upsetting.


Installing Windows Server core and then adding the Hyper-V role to that is functionally the same thing on a technical level.


But what we want is a break on the licensing structure so that we can continue to use this function without the onerous licensing requirements, especially when adding Linux VMs to the mix.


If you want to move us towards Azure Stack HCI, OK Great, make us a untimed free tier version of it which is functionally the same as the Hyper-V SKU, including single-host scenarios.


I can't speak for everyone, but personally I don't think that it would be too much of a trade-off to be expected for register an Azure account to be able to use the free Azure Stack HCI, and this would at least achieve some of your goals to get more users at least signed up for Azure and therefore have all the other (paid) offerings of Azure at our fingertips. Especially features like Azure Site Recovery could be super useful for our use case.


I would even go one step further, and be willing to meet you half way on this, where maybe you could offer Azure Stack HCI for free, on the condition that at least 1 VM per account is set up to a untimed free tier of Azure Site Recovery is set up, even if the Azure Site Recovery not incurring charges because it hasn't actually been activated to go live.


Yes I know that many will just set this up just to get the free Azure Stack HCI and not actually use it and therefore not paying any money at all, but at least you would be getting your foot in the door, especially if a disaster were to strike then it would already be set up and they could instantly become a paying customer.


I would also suggest that the Azure Stack HCI -> Azure Site Recovery linking process be as easy as possible.


The alternative here is that everyone in this thread is instead of sticking with a dead platform (2019 version) they are going to go with a completely free alternative like ESXi free tier, Proxmox or XCP-ng, which has no future potential for a connection to Azure.


We are the ones who would most likely start out on something free and then work our way up Microsoft the stack to the paid products (and my business spends many thousands a month on Microsoft licensing as it is, my bank account proves it). Your Azure Stack HCI has no chance of success without us being on board. It is a two-way street here.

I recall when dual socket machines hit thestreet that some vendors wanted prices based on that. Microsoft on the other hand does not charge more for Windows desktop even the R9 5950X processor which is more cores than needed for gaming.

The situation is quite clear now. We have no real answers why this SKU is being dropped.
M$ knows that hyper-v server is used quite a lot for non M$ VMs and does not generate any revenue. It's the said foot in the doors, but in homeless shelter, which they do not care about at all.
They want these VMs in Azure, period.


SMB with a few hosts running WinSrv VMs is fine (core + hyper-v role), but what if they need another hosts for a few large Linux VMs as well? They would need licenced the servers and that's the issue here. Enterprises doesn't care that much about a few $ monthly fees for Azure Stack HCI, for SMB it's a deal breaker.


This is tech community and the drop of Hyper-V server SKU is money decision. All we can do is wait if M$ will stick to it's plan. They want SMBs to move to Azure (more money) and Copr/Ent to use HCI (more money).

I wish people would understand how to respond to these kinds of moves. Flailing around isn't helpful by itself (I've long ago learned the hard way). Make the business case as to why this move isn't a good decision and what the impact is and any possible solutions you see. Anything else is just noise and/or possibly reinforcing the reason to shed all the whiners that throw tantrums.

The business case for keeping Hyper-V Server is simple.
There are NO freeloaders using Hyper-V Server. Only customers.
Allow me to explain.
There's only two (practical) main OSes for VMs you can put on a Hyper-V Server.
Windows and Linux. (There are others sure, but they're a very small minority and for purposes here, can fall into the Linux camp)
***Anyone invested in ONLY a full Linux stack isn't going to be using a Microsoft Hypervisor.***
Especially since it's very difficult to manage without a Windows machine, EVEN with Windows Admin Center.
People use a Microsoft Hypervisor because they use Microsoft products SOMEWHERE.
If someone is putting only Linux on a Hyper-V Server, it's because they're using Windows and Hyper-V somewhere else and want to manage them using a common interface.
So I again assert, there are *no* freeloaders off Hyper-V Server.
The only use cases for a standalone Hyper-V Server are:
1. Test environments (Which are free anyway)
2. Low footprint/attack surface host installs that contain at least 1 Windows Server VM (Which cost wise can be replaced by Standard Server Core, but with a larger attack surface, and larger footprint)
3. Hyper-V hosts running Linux only that are being managed alongside other Hyper-V installs using Windows. Because again, nobody using ONLY LINUX would use a Microsoft Hypervisor. It just wouldn't make sense.
Case #3 is the only one being really killed here, since #2 can be replaced with Server Standard Core.
Azure Stack HCI doesn't make any sense in the context of Case #3. At present, these systems are a "free addition" to other uses of Hyper-V. Nobody is going to pay $10 per core to run just a bunch of free Linux Systems. All it does is deprive the admins who manage multiple systems of a Microsoft based unified way of managing Windows AND Linux systems together.
What this encourages instead is Admins finding a *different* way to have a unified infrastructure to manage their different systems. So instead of running Hyper-V for case #2, you get mass migrations OFF of case #2 to 3rd party alternatives so admins can have a unified infrastructure, OR Admins sucking it up and running Windows hosts on Hyper-V and Linux hosts on something else without a unified infrastructure.
So from a business position, it doesn't make any sense. It just makes customers angry for no benefit to anyone involved.
Microsoft already knows Linux use is HUGE since Azure uses more Linux than Windows right now.
So burning bridges with Mixed infrastructure environments will absolutely cost them tons of business.
If nothing else, it will cause massive distrust in the future of Hyper-V as anything other than a "cloud" hypervisor, seen as "unfit for local deployments."
I don't particularly care what decision Microsoft makes, as I'm happy to move to other Hypervisors. I've enjoyed having a Microsoft provided unified infrastructure. Being able to manage and backup hosts running Linux alongside my hosts running Windows has been fantastic. But there's no shortage of vendors willing to offer me a unified infrastructure. And if MS is intent on removing theirs because they can't see the business value of it, I can't see them being able to direct the future of virtualization very well.

@athendrix I fully agree.

I myself have environments exactly as you described. So it's very good point - there are no freeloaders of hyper-v server. Running hyper-v for Linux only VMs is a nonsense. Linux admins have their own hypervisors.

I myself will survive the death of Hyper-V server SKU as well, because I will use core server instead. But as you said, hyper-v server SKU has smaller footprint and therefore it's a bit safer to use and makes more sence - it should be as thinner as possible and do one thing and one thing only - provision VM environment.

I'm also quite interested if there will be some sort of official statement from Microsoft.

Because I would love to hear the reasons behind this decision... and no, migrate to Azure should not be the ultimate answer :unamused:

So now let me explain how you monetize this, and how Microsoft makes this a big win for everyone involved.
I suspect this change to Azure Stack HCI comes from a threefold goal of pushing people to Azure, Simplifying the development process, and more effectively monetizing Hyper-V.
So here's how you get all of those, and make everyone happy.

Step 1. Restore Hyper-V Server as a Free Platform (You can even put Azure in the name. Azure Hyper-V Server Or Azure Hyper-V Stack or similar) and make it a standalone flagship free product.
Step 2. Remove the Hyper-V role from Windows Server 2022, and deprecate all other versions of Hyper-V.
This makes Hyper-V Server THE definitive way to deploy Hyper-V, so development can be simplified, and EVERYONE benefits from having the reduced attack surface and reduced footprint on the host.
Step 3. Add Storage Spaces Direct to Hyper-V Server. It needs Hyper-converged Storage to be able to replace all versions of Hyper-V.
Step 4. Require a Microsoft/Azure account to install Hyper-V Server. This will rub some people a little bit the wrong way, but it'll be acceptable, so long as we can choose if we want to be able to harden the install so it can't be cloud *managed*
You still need to have people use the account to setup the install though, so Step 5 can work.
Step 5. Here's where Microsoft gets people in their cloud.
Fully integrated simple backups to Azure with the option of live monitoring, so Azure can spin up the backup if the on-site VM goes down.

Hyper-V Server lacks the Hyperconverged Storage Spaces Direct, and Hyper-V in general lacks a cohesive backup solution. So including a live cloud backup out of the box directly to Azure that will be guaranteed easy to setup since they'll already have to have an account will be the best way to get those VMs in the cloud.

Everybody wins here. Hyper-V becomes a separate free product with flagship functionality, simplified development process, and direct links to get VMs in Azure.

You could even alter the base Windows setup that Hyper-V Server uses to ONLY RUN MICROSOFT SIGNED EXECUTABLES. Both for security purposes, and to ensure that Azure remains the primary method of backup.