HyperV R2 and ESX 4.0 -> Pro's and Con's

[Spazmatic]

Hi Guys,

Hi Everyone,
Hoping to start a new non biased thread, regarding the soon to be release Hyper v R2 (making mega promises) and the current VMware offering of ESX 4.0

In all your experiences what are the pros and cons of each system, would you recommend either in a production environment and why.
My personell experience with VMware has been very good, no problems yet.
HyperV R2, currently installing the evaluation on two HP machines I have lying at the office, using a Server core 2008 (takes a bit of convincing, as I'm sure you have seen).

PS. please don’t make rude comments referring to one system, we all know everyone loves VMware, but to be honest if Microsoft deliver on their R2 version do you think it will stand up against VMware’s offerings.

Anyhow no expert so hoping to hear from the ones who are

 

[DJNgoma]

So where is Conradl and his wise words when you need him?

 

[Conradl]

Edit: Not so wise today I'm afraid

My 2cents worth is to look at Citrix XenServer. VMWare has a whole bunch of really cool features; but it comes at a price. XenServer is free and has 95% of the functionality that most people require for server virtualisation; for smaller installations it is an obvious choice.

To answer your question, a lot comes down to preference. Test each product side-by-side and determine if you want to pay or not; and if you do, then decide on MS or VMWare....

WRT to HA and DR, VMWare is far ahead of MS. VMWare has things like storage VMotion, VM mirroring etc. MS still only has clustering, although you can use Citrix Essentials on top of HyperV for added benefits (but then it is no longer free). The problem is that a lot of people do not need things like HA, and are happy to settle for the basic server virtualisation; again Citrix fills this niche perfectly....

 

[Spazmatic]

Vmotion -> Live migration

Hi Conrad,

I know the R2 of HyperV now features live migration, have you had a chance to experiment with that and compare it to vmotion?

 

[Conradl]

Hi Conrad,

I know the R2 of HyperV now features live migration, have you had a chance to experiment with that and compare it to vmotion?

Its probably good to take step back when talking about live migration and which product is the best.

A few years ago companies were pitching their products based on who had the best HyperVisor - VMWare ESX won this one easily because they had a type one hypervisor - everybody else had a type two. Now the big three, VMware, Citrix and MS, all have type one products, so the actual Hypervisor is no longer a selling point (although MS is a bloated beast ). The selling point now are the features that the product offers.

The same thing happened with live migration: VMware sold it as a unique feature (it had that wow factor, and was literally a deal closer ) The big three now all have live migration, MS finally released it in R2; and they are all comparable. VMWare still leads, not because its VMotion is superior, but because the management suite that sits on top of the basic live migration stack is more mature and advanced.

VMWare can live migrate to a running clone, essentially mirroring a server in real time, as can Citrix. VMware can also migrate storage, which is pretty cool. If you only want live migration, then MS, Citrix and VMWare will all be the comparable. If you need advanced features, like DRS, and are willing to pay for them, then you have lots of options.

Again, just beware of the FUD. I have seen people spend lots of money and time implementing features that they simply do not use, and may in fact never use. They literally bought a Ferrari when all they needed was a Yaris....