Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.
I get it. But they really do make a decent product in Hyper-V. It's not KVM, but it's definitely functional.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.
It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.
Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.
Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.
Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.
No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.
Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.
Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)
I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.
I get it. But they really do make a decent product in Hyper-V. It's not KVM, but it's definitely functional.
When I first started virtualizing this place almost 9 years ago, Hyper-V lacked some of the features and capabilities VMware had, even in the lower tier offerings. The reason I like Hyper-V, is that over the years, it has increased its feature-set and capability enough to force VMware to respond by lowering prices, including previously paid features for "free" and even changing their pricing models to compete with Hyper-V.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
When I first started virtualizing this place almost 9 years ago, Hyper-V lacked some of the features and capabilities VMware had, even in the lower tier offerings.
Oh yeah, it sucked back then.
-
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
True. But don't need a VM for that at all with Hyper-V. That's a nice feature.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
True. But don't need a VM for that at all with Hyper-V. That's a nice feature.
That is also true. lol
-
Maybe I will play around with it after I upgrade my environment.
-
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
I haven't played around with VMware much. How does it work with vCenter? Does run in a VM on each hypervisor or on one hypervisor, or do you need it on completely separate hardware?
-
@Pete-S said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:
... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.
I haven't played around with VMware much. How does it work with vCenter? Does run in a VM on each hypervisor or completely separate from the hypervisors?
It is a virtual appliance. You can upgrade and migrate from an existing Windows version. You can run it on a single server.
