When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
In the words of @Lost_Signal773, HA is something you do and not something you buy.
That's from @John-Nicholson
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
There's also storage vMotion, which allows you to move the VM files from one storage device to another with no downtime (VM does not change hosts in this case). There is also enhanced vMotion, which allows you to move a VM from one host to another (CPU and RAM) and also move its actual files also (from one storage device to another).
That's a totally different thing, similar name, not similar in what it is. In no way a "level" of vMotion and not shared in utility or mechanism. And also available free with competing products.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
In the words of @Lost_Signal773, HA is something you do and not something you buy.
That's from @John-Nicholson
Edited my post above
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
With Hyper-V I must have a license of Windows.
No you do not, not at all. Hyper-V is 100% free, it has no ties to Windows whatsoever.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/5272/somethings-you-need-to-know-about-hyper-v
This is the top myth about Hyper-V, we must average debunking it two or more times a day on SW.
-
@Tim_G said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Tim_G It's free like a puppy
VMware is free like a kitten
A crippled kitten with distemper.
-
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It's not lazy it's considering licensing of application stuff, as well as operational costs. Back in the day Hypervisor HA was considered exotic and expensive (and it often was). Now it's mundane (tons of ops people know how to deploy/support it), ....
Is that really true? So many people use it without understanding it. The "using it because it seems easy" mindset makes for a support nightmare, similar to what Windows faces with their ecosystem. So many things are done incorrectly because it seems like you need to knowledge to do it. Then everything blows up.
In many ways, IT being too easy makes it dangerous in the real world.
-
@Tim_G said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Tim_G I'll take it. My dog requires 3 walks a day, and play time. My cats I had could be ignored for a week or more without much effort given enough food/water and fresh litter was left out.
True, but they don't do anything useful without an insane amount of training, time, and money ^_^
And the last time (admittedly some time ago) that we hired VMware training, the class trained the VMware staffer because Vmware didn't know its own product. I've had a certain lack of faith in it ever since Xen and Zones folks were the ones teaching VMware how to use its own software to the "expert" that VMware had on staff.
I'm sure Vmware has loads of great people, but even Vmware stuggled to find what I'd call competent users internally whereas finding people who knew Xen was pretty easy (and still is.)
-
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
The cost of the solution isn't expensive if your business requires those features.
example?
Fault Tolerance with vendor support for it. Technically not limited to Vmware, but essentially limited to it. I believe Suse with Xen is the only other vendor who offers OEM vendor support for that.
Agree 100%. It is one of the cheapest supported solutions. Issue is if you can afford it! Usually not here.
Of course exceptions can be around. But are exceptions imho in the small business.Not sure it is the cheapest. Compare to Red Hat, I bet RH is cheaper. I've not compared, I'm just guessing.
-
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
Yeah, super weird. We kept saying "why would we do this garbage when we can do it way better with Vmware?" They had no clue what Vmware was or that they were building joke hardware for another era.
-
Love the replies, I have nothing to contribute because the discussion has transcended far beyond my lack of expertise lol
Definitely appears to be a small space where it's beneficial, but for 99% of us the free ones are preferred and most will never see a scenario where it's truly needed
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
What was the statement to which that was a response? LOL
-
@scottalanmiller Redhat Costs more than that just to support a single server. (Seriously, get a quote). Even SuSE isn't that cheap. $1200 for 3 x 2 socket servers 24/7 support is wildly cheap for a hypervisor (Note I will give credit to Redhat and SuSE is they will also provide support for Linux as an OS for VM's with their higher support bundles so that will get you some OS support which is damn nice, but even then more people run RedHat and SuSE on ESXi than KVM rather than pay the premium to the linux vendors.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
What was the statement to which that was a response? LOL
Windows Support issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
Yeah, super weird. We kept saying "why would we do this garbage when we can do it way better with Vmware?" They had no clue what Vmware was or that they were building joke hardware for another era.
I get that they were trying to build hardware FT to try and compete with VMware FT, but...they failed big time.
-
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Love the replies, I have nothing to contribute because the discussion has transcended far beyond my lack of expertise lol
Definitely appears to be a small space where it's beneficial, but for 99% of us the free ones are preferred and most will never see a scenario where it's truly needed
It's more that there is a small space in the SMB where it is beneficial, but a HUGE space in the non-SMB where it is. If I'm running a Fortune 1000, I'd almost always choose VMware because the cost is small compared to the workloads, the support is assumed as a cost no matter what and they make the best stuff.
It's not knee jerk, I'd certainly talk to at least Red Hat, too. MS doesn't handle enterprise well, Hyper-V is perfect for SMB but I'd be super wary above the SME range. Just not the right fit once you want support (nor is Windows in general.) MS is for the "support it yourself only" world. But VMware is certainly the large business shortlist leader.
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
Yeah, super weird. We kept saying "why would we do this garbage when we can do it way better with Vmware?" They had no clue what Vmware was or that they were building joke hardware for another era.
I get that they were trying to build hardware FT to try and compete with VMware FT, but...they failed big time.
Except that kind of hardware is already dead common and has been for decades from every major vendor AND they were not aware that Vmware (and Xen) already had this!!
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
What was the statement to which that was a response? LOL
Windows Support issue.
OH. No, it's not that it would drive you to niche platforms. It's just a factor that commodity systems that are overly accessible (and really only normally applies to the SMB market leader, not back runners right behind them) hit in getting good support. it's not that you avoid those platforms because of it, it's just a negative to be weighed against a perceived positive.
It's a bit like a dating site that only allows humans, but has 100 real girls for you to talk to. Or another dating site that has 10,000 automated bots, but 200 girls for you to talk to.
The one with 100 real girls will net a date faster and more reliably while having half as many candidates.
