? for those already VI3

[snootalope]

We're just about to pull the trigger on VI3 and get this vm going.. However, I'm curious what others have done in their research before finally making the purchase of VMWare as opposed to Microsoft's Hyper-V. Now I can understand if you're not in a predominantly Microsoft shop...

But for those that are mainly MS, what made you choose VMWare over Hyper-V? Features, word of mouth, confidence, etc?

 

[Roadki11]

I choose VMWare because they are innovators. MS no longer inovates, with the monster coffers of cash they have, they now wait for others to create technology and they copy it or they buy it. They have proven this time and time again with the Zune, XBox, internet search, and of course virtualization. I like VMWare ESX because its its own OS, HyperV sits on top of a windows OS, which to me seems like common sense that HyperV is inferior. Minus that fiasco with licensing in its ESX 3.5 update 2 patch, VMWare does a pretty darn good job with patches and updates. We all know the history of MS and patching. We run a mix of MS, Novell, and Linux, mostly MS but all run extremely well under VMWare. Anyway, thats my 2 cents. I have included a link of a comparison, its just a bit dated but the info is good.

http://itcomparison.com/Virtualization/MShypervvsvi35/HyperVbetavsvmware35esx.htm

RoadKi11

"This apparent fear reaction is typical, rather than try to solve technical problems technically, policy solutions are often chosen." - Fred Cohen

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

My vote is for VMWare ESX. It has been solid for 3 years now, for us. We have 8 total server and 6 of them are in a cluster. The Linux base it runs on is very solid. I've only had to reboot during upgrades.

 

[LarryTheCucumber]

Here is an availability report from our oldest VMWare server
The down time is for reconfiguration of storage.
This was rebuilt in Feb 2007 for Oracle development servers. Before that it had been in operation from Feb of 2004.

The other 6 Vmware servers have similar stats.



Availability Report for #############
Feb 12, 2007 - Dec 19, 2008

Availability: 99.994%

Total time: 178 days, 8 hours

* Uptime: 178 days, 8 hours
* Downtime: 15 minutes

Note: Downtime is anytime the system isn't capable of running Virtual Machines. This includes reboots, crashes, configuration and running linux
Downtime Analysis
0.0% (15 minutes) downtime caused by:

* 100.0% (15 minutes) scheduled downtime
* 0.0% (0) unscheduled downtime

Reasons for scheduled downtime:

* 80.4% server booting (2 instances)
* 19.6% server rebooting (1 instance)

Stats

Current uptime: 675 days, 11 hours
Longest uptime: 178 days, 8 hours
Shortest uptime: 178 days, 8 hours
Average uptime: 178 days, 8 hours

Longest downtime: 6 minutes
Shortest downtime: 3 minutes
Average downtime: 5 minutes

Maximum VMs Sampled: 12
Average VMs Sampled: 6.91
Server Information

Number of CPUs: 8 logical, 8 cores, 8 packages, Intel(R) XEON(TM) MP CPU 2.00GHz

Installed Memory: 25165131 kB

 

[SimonDavies]

We did a due diligence on Hyper-V and ESX VI3 and essentially it comes down to a few things.

Would you want to be using vmotion functionality? would you want the maturity of a product that's been out for a number of years and isn't in it's first iteration, do you like the idea that your base OS has such a small footprint? Do you need to run NT4 in your environment at all? Do you need to manage your environments from Windows XP machines?

If you have answered yes to any of those the vmware is the one for you.

MS recognise that their product is lacking functionality compared to VMware and are making moves to rectifiy that, HyperV2 is due to launch mid 2010 (at the same time as 2008 R2) and will have a number of functions added to it (livemotion) that make it more attractive to people looking for serious virtualisation products but there are still those people worried about running a virtualisation platform based on a Windows OS, remember when you patch your guest OS's you will also have to do the host.

Don't get me wrong, I like HyperV, it's clever but it has it's limitations. HyperV requires either 2008 or Vista to use the management tools where as you can install the VC software on pretty much most things.

Give HyperV a couple of years to mature and you may find it takes a larger proportion of the virtualisation market from Vmware and Citrix (although MS and Citrix are working hand in hand with regards to virtulisation so perhaps Citrix and Xen aren't as much of a threat).

Simon

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

[snootalope]

I heard someone say that Hyper-V is practically free. The only Windows server licenses we have are all standard edition. Does that make a difference, or is Hyper-V really "almost free" no matter what microsoft licenses a guy currently has?

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

I believe it comes with Windows 2008 Server

 

[SimonDavies]

You can download the Hyper-V server which is free, however like all things free it has it's limitations.

The table on the following website gives you a better idea of what Hyper-V server offers compared to Windows 2008 Standard\Enterprise\Datacentre editions.

http://www.microsoft.com/servers/hyper-v-server/default.mspx

Simon

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

[Provogeek]

ESX3i is also free, no base OS requirments. Just download, load and go.

No CPU limits, no memory limits. Your only real limit is no Virtual Center (and no support unless you buy it).

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Brent Schmidt SPOOOOON!!!!!
Senior Network Engineer
Keep IT Simple

http://www.kiscc.com