ESX Appliance?
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
Isn't Xen free?
Open-source and free yes... also my preferred platform (I run it for my personal lab).
Ok, then what did you mean by the fact that "some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level"? Wouldn't it be more expensive that way?
Oh... I meant in comparison to Hyper-V not in comparison to Xen. A couple of the blog posts I've read on the cost to the enterprise has Hyper-V as the more expensive solution at that scale when compared with a similar VMWare solution.
Really? Even though a lot of the enterprises that I've seen have VERY high level VMware licensing, it's still cheaper?
I'll see if I can't dig up the blog posts.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
Isn't Xen free?
Open-source and free yes... also my preferred platform (I run it for my personal lab).
Ok, then what did you mean by the fact that "some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level"? Wouldn't it be more expensive that way?
Oh... I meant in comparison to Hyper-V not in comparison to Xen. A couple of the blog posts I've read on the cost to the enterprise has Hyper-V as the more expensive solution at that scale when compared with a similar VMWare solution.
Really? Even though a lot of the enterprises that I've seen have VERY high level VMware licensing, it's still cheaper?
I'll see if I can't dig up the blog posts.
I would appreciate that. That's just really surprising is all.
-
I feel like we need @scottalanmiller in on the OP discussion and this one.
-
@thanksaj Haha sadly agreed I can't seem to find the one I am looking for and the other ones are Microsoft or VMware sponsored...
-
It was an infoworld article but I can't for the life of me find it.
The basic gist was that ESXi can host more VMs per physical server then Hyper-V so you would need fewer Datacenter licenses and physical machines then you would if the datacenter were run on Hyper-V.
This is one of them but it is two years old now. I'm surprised that no one has done a more up-to-date version.
-
@coliver said:
It was an infoworld article but I can't for the life of me find it.
The basic gist was that ESXi can host more VMs per physical server then Hyper-V so you would need fewer Datacenter licenses and physical machines then you would if the datacenter were run on Hyper-V.
This is one of them but it is two years old now. I'm surprised that no one has done a more up-to-date version.
That makes sense. Considering you'd have to buy more physical servers, and a datacenter license is several thousand for EACH license, yeah...I guess I can see that.
-
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
-
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
Never touched Xen in my life, so I can't say one way or another with that.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
-
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
Sure you can. I was told by a Microsoft rep that they recommend running Hyper-V Server off of a very fast SD card.
-
@coliver I think I found my friday project.
-
-
@coliver said:
@milnesy said:
@coliver I think I found my friday project.
Running it off of a SD card? I've heard that you need a high-end card to make it usable... I've tried running it off a regular USB stick but it was abysmally slow.
So you need a Class 10 SDHC card I assume, right?
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
Sure you can. I was told by a Microsoft rep that they recommend running Hyper-V Server off of a very fast SD card.
Interesting...that is news to me. Sounds like MS is playing catch-up to get to VMware's level in a lot of ways...just my 2ยข.
-
You CAN have an ESXi appliance. It would just be an appliance built off of ESXi. Just like Scale is an appliance built off of KVM. Same different.
-
@thanksaj Yep I don't recall being told any specifics but yes a Class 10 card would probably be right.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You CAN have an ESXi appliance. It would just be an appliance built off of ESXi. Just like Scale is an appliance built off of KVM. Same different.
Ok, so the idea is possible in theory, but tell me @scottalanmiller , have you ever heard someone refer to an ESX appliance they just bought? Or talk about getting a quote for an ESX appliance? It's just not a term you hear, at least in my experience.
-
@thanksaj said:
He also mentioned how VMware is basically just Hyper-V, which when I calmly asked if he knew that they weren't the same thing, he just about flipped out...considering ESX had been around for years before Hyper-V hit the market (I looked it up just to confirm in my own head), I can pretty much say no. Besides, VMware is far more robust and powerful, as well as expensive than Hyper-V, and works very differently.
They are both Type 1 (bare metal) hypervisors. They are "basically" the same thing. One is older, sure. One is more robust, sure. But basically, they are the same thing. Like Chevy and Ford, they are basically the same. But people who like one or the other will generally argue with you.
VMware is not more expensive. For most use cases, it is actually cheaper.
