Our IT consultant sold us on Hyper-V Server rather than Windows Server with the Hyper-V role installed insisting that the former was more stable. He had no actual statistics to back up this claim, nor have I been able to find any online. The"Core" type management interface seems to present a number of challenges, especially when configuring the NIC bindings (he used NVSPBind). While it makes sense to me that a pared down management OS leaves less room for error, it concerns me when software tools that aren't necessarily "Officially Microsoft Approved" must be used to set up such critical layers of the architecture.
Is the Hyper-V Hyper Visor identical for Hyper-V Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2012 R2 core installation w/Hyper-V role, and Windows Server 2012 R2 full GUI w/Hyper-V role? Are the differences only with the management OS capabilities, interface style, and licensing? Does anyone have any actual statistics on reliability for the different installations in the same environment (e.g. up-time, failure severity, etc.)?