Hi All,

I am running a single host which operates Windows Server 2012 Standard. The host runs 12 Virtual Machines through Microsoft Hyper-V.

Is it better to install the Network Monitor onto the host or onto one of the VMs. I understand that installing to the host will be more long winded, e.g.: out of normal business operational hours I must shut down all VMs, install PRTG and reboot the host.

I guess ultimately what I am wondering is whether PRTG is better at auto discovery when installed onto the host itself?

Any recommendations or best practices will be much appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Davo

Article Comments

Hi Davo,

In most cases updating PRTG requires a restart of the server, so yes, it would not be ideal when it's installed on the Hypervisor instead a VM in this regard. However when surpassing a certain amount of sensors we strongly advice running PRTG on a (dedicated) physical machine, otherwise performance issues are to be expected we wouldn't be able to help you with. For details and further information please take a look at our system requirements page here.

Kind regards.


Feb, 2016 - Permalink

Hi Erhard,

Could you elaborate on "surpassing a certain amount of sensors" ?

We currently have 1500 sensors and we plan to move our PRTG installation from our main VM handling heavy network trafic to a dedicated VM, both managed by the same Hypervisor.

The main goals are

  1. to avoid system restart when PRTG needs an update,
  2. to give back disk space to main VM and
  3. to improve overall performances.

With more than 1500 sensors, including local and remote probes, would you consider a dedicated physical machine more than VM?

Thanks, Fred


Feb, 2019 - Permalink

Hi Fred,

See System Requirements page here, when running PRTG on a virtual machine, we do not recommend to have more than 5000 sensors, so with 1500 sensors and somewhat beyond, it should be fine.

See also Checklist for running PRTG on VMware.

Kind regards,

Erhard


Feb, 2019 - Permalink