virtualizing windows servers

[gatetec]

I am a UNIX guy, and need to deal with 'virtualizing windows servers" at work. Sorry, but can you please let me know the source/info to get myself familiar with 'virtualization'?
I am trying to understand what 'virtualization' is in the Windows world.

Thanks much

 

[MasterRacker]

VMware is the largest player.

http://www.vmware.com/

Their promotional materials will give yo a good idea of what they're doing.

Microsoft's Hyper-V is what they'll be pushing but the architecture is different. You'll want to read up on that as well.

There's also a VMware forum here on TT: forum1320

Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

VMWare is the way to go and being a Unix guy, you'll appreciate the Linux platform.

 

[58sniper]

Both Hyper-V and VMWare work great. Either is a feature rich, stable platform.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[LWComputingMVP]

There are tons and tons of documentation available on Windows and Virtualization. In general, VMWare has the edge, at least with memory management. But Hyper-V is a good choice, especially if you don't need many systems on one server.

-Lee

Those who ask why, learn

http://www.lwcomputing.com

 

[58sniper]

Don't need many systems on one server? So my 100+ very stable guests on a single Hyper-V system is not normal?

Other than v-motion, I'd put HyperV up against VMWare any day. Not that I'm saying it's better. I think they are both on par.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[LWComputingMVP]

What are your specs on the server?

As I understood it, Hyper-V does not do memory sharing. As a result, you need more RAM than you would to run the same number of servers on VMWare. Otherwise, I agree, they are both going to perform "virtually" the same.

-Lee

Those who ask why, learn

http://www.lwcomputing.com

 

[58sniper]

The advantage of not doing memory sharing is that you have better stability, and less likely for one guest to take down another.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[LWComputingMVP]

I don't buy that. VMWare is the STANDARD in Virtualization - so many organizations wouldn't be using it if Memory Sharing caused instability to any significant degree.

This doesn't mean I don't respect Hyper-V. I like it. But lets face it, it's a 1.0 product.

-Lee

Those who ask why, learn

http://www.lwcomputing.com

 

[Roadki11]

Wow, 100 guests on 1 host. Must take you forever to power them down and up when you patch the host every month?



RoadKi11

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

 

[Davetoo]

Path the host? But with the now free ESXi product from VMWare you don't have to patch the host?!?

Oh...you were talking about the HyperV alternative...

;-)

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!