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?:
@Jimmy9008 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.
If the host crashes? So... I have 5 VMs... the host dies.... NOW! vMotion brings them up on host2 instantly, with the exact same in memory and app running etc... no boot?
Correct.
Now that is a nice feature
didn't know that. Impressive with no shared storage. Even in windows cluster, if a node dies with a running VM, when it comes up on Node2... it boots from fresh and lost memory.So, what the price tag for vMotion?
You can research the pricing, I think it's in the $5000 range per year.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something... Just read this https://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/vmotion.html
The host has to be up for vMotion... as in... not HA. If the host dies now, this second, the admin has not moved the machine = service unavailable. Exactly the same as Hyper-V move. -
Here is a whitepaper on vMotion.
-
vMotion appears to copy the state of a VM from host A to host B, while keeping the VM "live", if host A crashed while running 5 VMs, as stated above, how could it fail over to host B instantaneously in the same exact state?
-
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
vMotion appears to copy the state of a VM from host A to host B, while keeping the VM "live", if host A crashed while running 5 VMs, as stated above, how could it fail over to host B instantaneously in the same exact state?
Agree. I think Dustin missed my point. vMotion offers little more than the standard move feature in the free hyper-v.
-
There are other features as well, but vMotion and memory state moves are big items that ESXi has, which might make it the correct solution for a business.
Don't get hung up on the 1 item I've mentioned as the only thing ESXi has.
-
If comparing free VMWare and Hyper-V, then definitely Hyper-V... because free VMWare is almost useless compared, as it's lacking so many useful features and benefits that Hyper-V has for free.
If comparing Hyper-V Free and paid VMWare, then you get a lot more with VMWare than free Hyper-V.
If comparing Datacenter Hyper-V with System Center vs VMWare paid, then you really need to do some serious evaluating. Do you already have Datacenter? Do you already have SC?
I'm assuming not, you said new install, so lets assume no VMWare of any type, no Hyper-V of any type, no System Center, no Windows or licensing of any type... In that case, you can't be big enough at that point to really need more than the free Hyper-V.
But it depends on a lot of things, obviously. If it's all from scratch, perhaps just Hyper-V Server 2016 and a bunch of Linux VMs will do the trick. You don't really need to pay for VMWare until you have hardware that requires it, or need features that are more cost effected or more beneficial than from HYper-V Free or Hyper-V Datacenter and/or System Center. It takes a lot of work evaluating the business and what's the best fit.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Agree. I think Dustin missed my point. vMotion offers little more than the standard move feature in the free hyper-v.
From the whitepaper, there needs to be shared storage for this... which makes sense.
"First, the entire state of a virtual machine is encapsulated by a set
of files stored on shared storage such as Fibre Channel or iSCSI
Storage Area Network (SAN) or Network Attached Storage (NAS).
VMware’s clustered Virtual Machine File System (VMFS) allows
multiple installations of ESX Server to access the same virtual
machine files concurrently." -
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
There are other features as well, but vMotion and memory state moves are big items that ESXi has, which might make it the correct solution for a business.
Don't get hung up on the 1 item I've mentioned as the only thing ESXi has.
But that one thing is nothing more than what Hyper-V free has, so it was a poor thing to have mentioned as something that sets VMWare above others...
-
@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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
-
VMWare is awesome.
You really cannot beat VMWare. It is the best thing out there.But the cost to obtain it is high because until you grow bigger than a few hosts using vSAN or internal storage, there is no point to paying for it.
The SMB almost never needs it.
-
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
-
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare. -
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
-
You also have to ensure, when using VMware, that your license includes things like vMotion and the HA failover stuff.
Hyper-V has host Replicas. I'm not sure what it's called in KVM and Xen / XenServer.
But all of the other Hypervisors include all the bells and whistles without any need for a license.
-
Which 3rd party solutions adds complexity, and can lead the the blame game.
There is value in ESXi, but it's not something easily justified for a lot of businesses.
-
@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?:
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
No. You could use hyper-v on its own and match the availability of VMWare site-for-site, with good design. For example, I could use haproxy with multiple IIS servers, VMs, all sitting on multiple hosts, connection to a SQL Server using failover cluster services for the database (no shared storage needed) with multiple lines in etc...
Different design - yes. Less availability than that one same site running VMWare - no.
-
@Jimmy9008 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?:
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
No. You could use hyper-v on its own and match the availability of VMWare site-for-site, with good design. For example, I could use haproxy with multiple IIS servers, VMs, all sitting on multiple hosts, connection to a SQL Server using failover cluster services for the database (no shared storage needed) with multiple lines in etc...
Different design - yes. Less availability than that one same site running VMWare - no.
And your dependency chain is way longer in this setup. The complexity goes through the roof as well. Which while it may be doable, doesn't mean its practical.
At that point you might as well just license ESXi and tell your systems to pool (across multiple sites). Project done.
-
@JaredBusch said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
VMWare is awesome.
You really cannot beat VMWare. It is the best thing out there.But the cost to obtain it is high because until you grow bigger than a few hosts using vSAN or internal storage, there is no point to paying for it.
The SMB almost never needs it.
That makes sense why it's typically not a recommended solution as a lot of us are SMB. I have very little exposure to VMware. Definitely not enough to understand it's strengths and weaknesses. Valuable information.
-
@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?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr 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."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
No. You could use hyper-v on its own and match the availability of VMWare site-for-site, with good design. For example, I could use haproxy with multiple IIS servers, VMs, all sitting on multiple hosts, connection to a SQL Server using failover cluster services for the database (no shared storage needed) with multiple lines in etc...
Different design - yes. Less availability than that one same site running VMWare - no.
And your dependency chain is way longer in this setup. The complexity goes through the roof as well. Which while it may be doable, doesn't mean its practical.
At that point you might as well just license ESXi and tell your systems to pool (across multiple sites). Project done.
Why way longer? Two VMs for HAProxy in failover, one on nodeA, one on nodeB, 2 x IIS sitting behing them, one on nodeA, one on nodeB, sql server clustered, one nodeA, one nodeB... not difficult. Just as much reliability as having multiple servers with VMWare at 5k a pop. With VMWare, i'd still need two SQL servers for cluster. I'd still need two IIS, and i'd still likely want haproxy to make sure the traffic will failover between the IIS too...
-
@Jimmy9008 I'm done with the topic. Please investigate ESXi and how it manages the individual hosts and enabled HA there in.
