What are the benefits and drawbacks of using Server Core vs. Server with Desktop Experience?

Server Core is made for users who are used to using command line commands. In terms of effectiveness, the server core can be run with minimal resources because it does not use graphics

Server core is recommanded in high risk environment or in some environment that the need of frequent configuration or modification are non-existent. Microsoft recommand it for example for AD CS (Certificate Server) or for a Hyper-V cluster of servers in virtualized environment (Failover, S2D, HCI, etc...). By the fact there are no GUI, there are less attack surface. In such a case, you can manage your server with WAC (Windows Admin center for example).

A good example for Core is a single function server without graphics requirements. This could work in Manufacturing, R&D and other applications that do not require a human graphical interface.

Windows Server Core is a minimal installation option of Windows Server without the traditional graphical user interface. It operates with a command-line interface or remote management tools. This lightweight configuration reduces resource usage, enhances security by minimizing attack surfaces, and simplifies maintenance. Core is suitable for specific server roles like Hyper-V, DNS, and file services. Administration occurs via PowerShell, Remote Server Administration Tools, or Windows Admin Center. Core is beneficial for resource-efficient, headless, and remotely managed server deployments.

Key benefits and drawbacks of Server Core compared to Server with desktop experience (SDE): Advantages of SC: •They require fewer disk spaces and system resources. • More secure due to few installed components and services. • Low overhead allows better performances in data centers as well as in cloud environments. • Remote management using Windows Admin Center, PowerShell, and Remote Server Administration Tools. • Has standard Windows GUI. Advantages: • All server roles and features are accessible. • Familiar windows interface. Disadvantages: • High on system resources. • More components and services increase the attack surface area. • There is additional overhead due to GUI, plus more services which impact performance.

Windows Server with Desktop Experience is a full-featured version of Windows Server that includes a graphical user interface (GUI). It offers a familiar Windows desktop environment, making it suitable for tasks requiring direct user interaction. This version supports traditional applications and server roles, providing ease of management through graphical tools like Server Manager. While it consumes more resources compared to Server Core, it simplifies administration for those accustomed to a GUI. It's recommended for scenarios where a graphical interface is essential, such as managing complex configurations or running applications with GUI dependencies.

Server with Desktop Experience, formerly known as the full installation option, provides the complete Windows user interface, including the Desktop Experience feature, familiar to Windows client operating systems. It offers graphical management tools and support for running graphical applications directly on the server.

Devido à falta de uma GUI, a segurança é aumentada devido à sua reduzida superfície de ataque. Ele utiliza menos recursos do sistema, o que resulta em um aumento no desempenho e na eficiência. Além do mais, requer menos atualizações e reinicializações, o que leva a menos períodos de inatividade. Finalmente, sua menor instalação o torna perfeito para ser usado em ambientes virtualizados e na nuvem.

Reduced Attack Surface: Server Core minimizes the attack by excluding unnecessary components and reducing the number of services running enhancing security. Improved Performance: With fewer components and services, Server Core typically exhibits better performance compared to the full version. Lower Consumption: Server Core consumes fewer resources such as CPU, memory, and disk space, making it suitable for environments with resource constraints. Ease of Management: Despite lacking a graphical interface, Server Core can be managed remotely using PowerShell, Server Manager facilitating centralized administration. Enhanced Reliability: The reduced complexity of Server Core installations can lead to increased system stability and reliability.

Server Core (Standard) uses command line cmd, sConfig, and PowerShell, you prefer to install it when you don’t need to use user interface elements as graphical tools in the Desktop Experience version.

If it is a server that only runs certain infrastructure services, such as Active Directory, DNS, DHCP, etc., and an administrator would very rarely (if ever) need to directly login to manage or configure it, then Core is great. Outside of those use cases, it presents far more problems than it solves.

We all agree that this is a good way of doing things given to administrators (automation, scripts, etc.) in order to increase their productivity and security, however there are some disadvantages to such a choice: - The fact that you need a medium or high skills to administer a server (bash, shell, powershell). - In other cases, increase complexity and "overlook likely future problems" for teams that are not well trained or for those who have not implemented some monitoring or metrology tools.

Limited Compatibility: Some third-party applications or management tools may not be compatible with Server Core due to its lack of GUI, requiring additional effort to find alternatives or workarounds. Steep Learning Curve: Administrators accustomed to graphical management interfaces may find it challenging initially to transition to managing Server Core through command-line tools or remote management. Troubleshooting Complexity: Debugging issues on Server Core installations might be more challenging without the aid of graphical tools, potentially requiring a deeper understanding of command-line utilities and system logs.

A falta de uma GUI no Windows Server Core pode complicar a administração para usuários com menos experiência, sendo considerada uma desvantagem. Além do mais, nem todos os aplicativos e serviços funcionam com o Server Core. A resolução de problemas pode ser mais desafiadora sem a presença da interface gráfica. Finalmente, a ausência de suporte para determinadas funções do servidor pode restringir sua eficácia em algumas situações.

Server Core is ideal for scenarios where performance, security, and minimal maintenance are paramount, and command-line proficiency will be an asset. On the other hand, Server with Desktop Experience offers a more familiar and versatile environment, suitable for a wide range of applications and easier troubleshooting

Choose Windows Server Core for resource efficiency, reduced attack surface, and headless deployments. Ideal for specific roles like Hyper-V or when GUI is unnecessary. Use PowerShell for administration. Select Windows Server with Desktop Experience for a full GUI, user-friendly interface, and traditional applications. Suitable when direct user interaction is essential. Consider resource usage, security needs, and administrator preferences when deciding between the two configurations. Hybrid approaches, like using Core for certain roles and Desktop Experience for others, are also possible based on specific requirements.

Choisir entre une installation GUI ou GUIless, devrait dependre de - La nécessité d'un administrateur ou d'une équipe informatique à souhaiter géré l'ensemble de l'infrastructure à partir d'un point unique (Windows Admin Center par exemple, vCenter...; - La fréquence de mise à jour ou interaction direct avec un serveur après installation ; - La capacité de réaliser une tâche le plus rapidement possible avec ou sans interface graphique. - L'aspect sécurité; - choix d'outils d'administration;

Consider Workload Requirements: Evaluate the specific workload and applications intended to run on the server. Some applications may require a GUI, making the full version a more suitable choice. Assess Resource Availability: Determine the available system resources and whether the overhead of running a GUI is acceptable. Security Considerations: For environments where security is a primary concern, opting for Server Core can help reduce the attack surface and enhance system security. Administrative Preference: Consider the administrative skills and preferences of the IT staff responsible for managing the server. If administrators are proficient in command-line management or prefer remote management tools, Server Core may be a better.

In a world where on-prem virtual infrastructures and IaaS cloud providers offer relatively inexpensive CPU and RAM as commodities, saving a couple GB of RAM or a CPU core by using Server Core has a limited value proposition in most cases. Given than many Windows OS vulnerabilities are in services Core runs as well, there is limited security value as well. Most often, the disadvantages of an OS that only your senior sysadmin staff knows how to manage outweigh the disadvantages of the DE version.

Future Scalability: Consider the future scalability requirements of the environment. Server Core's minimalistic nature and reduced resource consumption can be advantageous as the infrastructure scales up. Deployment Automation: Automation tools and practices can streamline the deployment and management of Server Core installations, mitigating some of the challenges associated with its minimalistic design. Hybrid Approaches: In some cases, a hybrid approach combining both Server Core and Server with Desktop Experience installations across different servers within the environment might offer the best balance between resource efficiency and usability, catering to diverse workload requirements.