38 posts in this topic

Posted

[quote]
[b] Microsoft touts enhancements in Hyper-V and Windows Server 2012 with more secure multi-tenancy, higher performance and flexibility. A migration software vendor says this could move VMware users to Hyper-V.[/b]


Enhancements to [url="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Microsofts-Windows-Server-8-Beta-Available-540262/"]Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think, reading the article, this is where Microsoft can differentiate themselves from VMware. Using the virtualisation layer to bundle their applications together and make highly available offerings right out of the box. If you could basically deploy a virtual cluster of IIS servers, a SQL cluster, or a file server all right out of the box and leverage the HA functionality of the hypervisor you'd have a powerful offering IMHO.

Currently Hyper-V on Windows 2008 R2 doesn't appeal to me - not enough features and no compelling reason to switch from ESX in our enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Agreed. My workplace has been using VMWare for years in our production environment. Our server team has some younger folks on it though, who are starting to lean towards Hyper-V or are at least actively testing it. Microsoft has built a solid product, but they need to do even more if they're expecting companies to change from their current VM environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's certainly gone a long way, but I'll see it first before I'll believe it. Because I'm still wondering about:
- Proper / advanced network (VLAN, LAG, QoS etc.) and redundancy support;
- NFS NAS support for cheap / fake iSCSI fail-over support (the not-so-nice SMB solution);
- Proper BSD / Linux support;
- Overhead (Hyper-V server has always used more CPU / Memory compared to VMware in my experience);

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah well there are a lot of gaps still potentially, and I have to be honest I just like how VMware does a lot of things. I'll take some major convincing to move to Hyper-V but frankly if it works as well as VMware does, licensing for us is EXTREMELY favourable and we'd save into the realms of hundreds of thousands of pounds by moving away from ESX and over to Hyper-V. I can live with disliking a few things here and there for those kinds of savings!

Should be at VMworld in August though and VMware will launch ESX 5.1 which will move the goalposts again for Microsoft a bit... will see what comes out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Chicane-UK' timestamp='1338412886' post='594897971']
Yeah well there are a lot of gaps still potentially, and I have to be honest I just like how VMware does a lot of things. I'll take some major convincing to move to Hyper-V but frankly if it works as well as VMware does, licensing for us is EXTREMELY favourable and we'd save into the realms of hundreds of thousands of pounds by moving away from ESX and over to Hyper-V. I can live with disliking a few things here and there for those kinds of savings!

Should be at VMworld in August though and VMware will launch ESX 5.1 which will move the goalposts again for Microsoft a bit... will see what comes out!
[/quote]

From using both Hyper-V and vmWare, the big vmWare advantage is non-Windows client support - from a guest/client-management standpoint, Hyper-V has vmWare (any version) thoroughly waxed.

If you are dealing only with Windows-based guests/clients, any advantage vmWare would appear to have goes south entirely because of the ease of using Hyper-V Virtual Machine Manager; even more frightening, it's just as easy to manage VMs remotely as it is locally.

Need scalable virtual infrastructure? How small does ESXi scale? It's one thing to scale up - that is what both vmWare and Hyper-V have been touting in their face-off. However, one rather surprising Hyper-V advantage is that it can scale *down* just as easily - ESXi has issues scaling down to fewer than five VMs, while Hyper-V has no issues with as few as just one. With as rapidly as economic conditions can oscillate between fantastic and lousy, bidirectional scalability is a must-have.

If you needd support for non-Windows guests, vmWare wins. However, if your guest support is Windows, Hyper-V deserves serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In my relatively short exp. with Hyper-V, two things stood out that I didn't like: 1) It's slower than what I usually use (which is the open source version of Xen) and 2) It has really poor support for Linux.

Though of the 3 (that is Xen, Hyper-V and VMWare), Hyper-V has the best tooling.

VMWare I like, but I can't stand the slow as hell app that they give you for managing an ESXi server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='olger901' timestamp='1338412240' post='594897959']
It's certainly gone a long way, but I'll see it first before I'll believe it. Because I'm still wondering about:
- Proper / advanced network (VLAN, LAG, QoS etc.) and redundancy support;
- NFS NAS support for cheap / fake iSCSI fail-over support (the not-so-nice SMB solution);
- Proper BSD / Linux support;
- Overhead (Hyper-V server has always used more CPU / Memory compared to VMware in my experience);
[/quote]
1. Hyper-V has the ability to provide lots of extensibility at the vSwitch, and since it's Windows 2012 underneath running Windows drivers (with native teaming software), it can do those things as well if the driver supports them. Also, Windows itself has supported a lot of those networking technologies for a few versions now, it's only the redundancy support at the network layer that's totally new in 2012.
2. Hyper-V requires block-level storage, but anything presented over iSCSI or as SMB (including storage from Storage Spaces pools) can be used in Hyper-V. NFS isn't supported, but against SMB3 shares it doesn't really perform as well either, so you wouldn't really want to use it in production anyway.
3. If you're using a supported Linux OS (RedHat/CentOS, SUSE, or Ubuntu) you've got proper support with the latest ICs, and at the kernel-level as well. If you're looking for support beyond that, you probably won't get it until something changes with the maintainers of the other Linux or BSD distributions, or they pick up the hyperv drivers in their kernels, or both. Given some of this involves enterprise support by both Microsoft and the 3rd party distribution, that also holds back support of some distros. VMware doesn't really support those other distros either, and provides only driver support; Microsoft provides a more end-to-end support solution with their products, thus they generally only work with those that will partner with them and also have enterprise-level support. That limits the pool - it's great if you've ever used it, but it does limit the pool of non-Microsoft OSes "officially" supported.
4. Hyper-V on 2012 (and really 2008R2 SP1) isn't really heavy at all, and performance is about what I get from VMware servers as well. There's some benefit of using a guest partition as the "host" though, which is a much more robust way to get at performance data for both the hypervisor and the guest OS(es) from a single place (the "parent" guest VM).

I didn't really use 2008 Hyper-V in any sort of production role so I can't comment on that, but I see Xen, VMware, and Hyper-V in my travels as a virtualization consultant, and find that VMware and Hyper-V both perform about as well as the other on similar hardware. Xen has some advantages in purely CPU-driven workloads, but falters in I/O and memory performance compared to VMware and Hyper-V, making it less attractive for heavy enterprise workloads that aren't CPU-driven, and even those that are that also require good memory, network, or storage perf don't work as well on Xen as on VMware or Hyper-V server. Obviously this is just one man's experience over the last 7 years or so doing virtualization work, and worth about as much, but it's been pretty darned consistent. Hyper-V Server + Windows cluster + SCVMM in most workload scenarios is now "good enough" compared to other solutions, and is usually (not always, but usually) quite a bit cheaper to run. If your environment needs some of the more advanced features that can only be achieved by VMware, then it makes some sense to pay for VMware to run that environment or specific scenario, but I always tell my clients, especially those running platforms that are officially supported by Microsoft on Hyper-V (Windows, RedHat/CentOS, SuSE, Ubuntu), to evaluate what they really need, and what it costs to get there. I would never recommend a rip and replace of anything right now as the costs would be large, but not seriously evaluating and testing the options out there as you replace hardware, upgrade the OSes in virtual environments, etc. would be stupid. There's money on the table thanks to Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Citrix), and no matter what you ultimately choose, it makes sense to see if there's money your virtualization environment could be paying back to you while still doing what you require it to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='cluberti' timestamp='1354075978' post='595353946']
1. Hyper-V has the ability to provide lots of extensibility at the vSwitch, and since it's Windows 2012 underneath running Windows drivers (with native teaming software), it can do those things as well if the driver supports them. Also, Windows itself has supported a lot of those networking technologies for a few versions now, it's only the redundancy support at the network layer that's totally new in 2012.
2. Hyper-V requires block-level storage, but anything presented over iSCSI or as SMB (including storage from Storage Spaces pools) can be used in Hyper-V. NFS isn't supported, but against SMB3 shares it doesn't really perform as well either, so you wouldn't really want to use it in production anyway.
3. If you're using a supported Linux OS (RedHat/CentOS, SUSE, or Ubuntu) you've got proper support with the latest ICs, and at the kernel-level as well. If you're looking for support beyond that, you probably won't get it until something changes with the maintainers of the other Linux or BSD distributions, or they pick up the hyperv drivers in their kernels, or both. Given some of this involves enterprise support by both Microsoft and the 3rd party distribution, that also holds back support of some distros. VMware doesn't really support those other distros either, and provides only driver support; Microsoft provides a more end-to-end support solution with their products, thus they generally only work with those that will partner with them and also have enterprise-level support. That limits the pool - it's great if you've ever used it, but it does limit the pool of non-Microsoft OSes "officially" supported.
4. Hyper-V on 2012 (and really 2008R2 SP1) isn't really heavy at all, and performance is about what I get from VMware servers as well. There's some benefit of using a guest partition as the "host" though, which is a much more robust way to get at performance data for both the hypervisor and the guest OS(es) from a single place (the "parent" guest VM).

I didn't really use 2008 Hyper-V in any sort of production role so I can't comment on that, but I see Xen, VMware, and Hyper-V in my travels as a virtualization consultant, and find that VMware and Hyper-V both perform about as well as the other on similar hardware. Xen has some advantages in purely CPU-driven workloads, but falters in I/O and memory performance compared to VMware and Hyper-V, making it less attractive for heavy enterprise workloads that aren't CPU-driven, and even those that are that also require good memory, network, or storage perf don't work as well on Xen as on VMware or Hyper-V server. Obviously this is just one man's experience over the last 7 years or so doing virtualization work, and worth about as much, but it's been pretty darned consistent. Hyper-V Server + Windows cluster + SCVMM in most workload scenarios is now "good enough" compared to other solutions, and is usually (not always, but usually) quite a bit cheaper to run. If your environment needs some of the more advanced features that can only be achieved by VMware, then it makes some sense to pay for VMware to run that environment or specific scenario, but I always tell my clients, especially those running platforms that are officially supported by Microsoft on Hyper-V (Windows, RedHat/CentOS, SuSE, Ubuntu), to evaluate what they really need, and what it costs to get there. I would never recommend a rip and replace of anything right now as the costs would be large, but not seriously evaluating and testing the options out there as you replace hardware, upgrade the OSes in virtual environments, etc. would be stupid. There's money on the table thanks to Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Citrix), and no matter what you ultimately choose, it makes sense to see if there's money your virtualization environment could be paying back to you while still doing what you require it to do.
[/quote]

1A. Hyper-V provides both extensibility and scalability at the virtual switch - scaling up to fiber or down to wireless-G (or anywhere in between). That's something no other hypervisor does. Other hypervisors may be as good (or better) at scaling up - however, given how fast economic conditions can change, scaling down is just as critical.

2A. Ease of learning - Another advantage Hyper-V has over vmWare is that it's not harder to manage scaling in either direction; scaling either up or down is ridiculously simple. If you have Windows 8 deployed anywhere at all, those clients can create VMs at their seats and export them to the Hyper-V server - no matter where either they OR the server may be. (Hyper-V is a no-cost add-in for Windows 8.)

3. Ease of use - In most cases, Hyper-V is a *launch and leave* technology at the server end - it starts when the server does, and you generally don't worry about it unless you take the server down for some reason. Hyper-V also uses surprisingly little in the way of server resources - less than any version of vmWare, for example. (That is huge-to-monstrous when virtualization is not the primary task for the server.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They are 100% correct. With Datacenter's licensing, the common platform, Hyper-V's improvement, and VMware's licensing, cost, and homogenous training and skillsets, it is going to happen.

The Server Group has their [email="s#@t"]s#@t[/email] together. It's the Windows Desktop/Consumer areas that are out to lunch right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='MorganX' timestamp='1354298029' post='595360248']
They are 100% correct. With Datacenter's licensing, the common platform, Hyper-V's improvement, and VMware's licensing, cost, and homogenous training and skillsets, it is going to happen.

The Server Group has their [email="s#@t"]s#@t[/email] together. It's the Windows Desktop/Consumer areas that are out to lunch right now.
[/quote]

Here's the scary part - Hyper-V is standard with ANY version of Windows Server since 2008 Standard (with the sole exceptions of Windows Home Server OR 2012 Essentials) - if you have 2012 Essentials, you can add the no-cost Hyper-V Server.

Hyper-V Virtual Machine Manager (standard fare with all implementations of Hyper-V) is where virtual machines get built - either via a wizard or pull-down menus; both methods are fully customizable. VMs themselves are scalable in ways that not even vCenter or ESXi allows - in addition to virtual switches (both wired and wireless; as I stated before, from fiber down to wireless-G), you can create virtual SANs in addition to virtual disks.

And I would not say that the Desktop/Consumer side of Windows is even remotely out to lunch - not with the rapid takeup Windows 8 has been getting (despite mis-step after mis-step by OEMs as far as product delivery into the sales channel, sales have outstripped those of Windows 7 - which as much as I enjoy using Windows 8, was sure was NOT going to happen).

The real issue with Windows 8 is that it may well be too MUCH operating system for the average user - even though it fits into the same hardware footprint as Windows 7.

Back to Hyper-V and the uses thereof - another major improvement is the support for more Linux distributions - Fedora and its major clones and most flavors of Ubuntu 12.xx are now supported as Hyper-V guests (I have a Kubuntu guest running in the background right now). Being able to use a Linux distribution (and thus making CALs a non-issue) is something that hadn't been expected out of Hyper-V, given how poor Linux guest support was in 2008R2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='PGHammer' timestamp='1354410533' post='595362654']
And I would not say that the Desktop/Consumer side of Windows is even remotely out to lunch - not with the rapid takeup Windows 8 has been getting (despite mis-step after mis-step by OEMs as far as product delivery into the sales channel, sales have outstripped those of Windows 7 - which as much as I enjoy using Windows 8, was sure was NOT going to happen).
[/quote]

Agree with all the Hyper-V stuff. Windows 8 is fine, the out to lunch part is the lack of polish, finish and integration. My thoughts on that are all over the forums. But 8 itself, particularly the desktop environment, is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='MorganX' timestamp='1354413245' post='595362714']
Agree with all the Hyper-V stuff. Windows 8 is fine, the out to lunch part is the lack of polish, finish and integration. My thoughts on that are all over the forums. But 8 itself, particularly the desktop environment, is fine.
[/quote]

Yes - ModernUI is rough around the edges; however, that is largely what happens when you play catch-up. (Wasn't the same true, in fact, of Android?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Am I the only one here that finds it absurd that both companies (Vmware and Microsoft) charge extra for software that makes it easier to manage their virtualization platforms... Or that microsoft charges for "System Center" which makes it easier to manage their OS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='betax' timestamp='1354415206' post='595362772']
Am I the only one here that finds it absurd that both companies (Vmware and Microsoft) charge extra for software that makes it easier to manage their virtualization platforms... Or that microsoft charges for "System Center" which makes it easier to manage their OS?
[/quote]

I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kaedrin' timestamp='1354485669' post='595364208']
Snip


In the case of both Hyper-V and vSphere, I can say that without the management platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Kaedrin' timestamp='1354485669' post='595364208']
I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='cluberti' timestamp='1354075978' post='595353946']
Hyper-V Server + Windows cluster + SCVMM in most workload scenarios is now "good enough" compared to other solutions, and is usually (not always, but usually) quite a bit cheaper to run.
[/quote]

I concur. As of Server 2008 R2 SP1, and SCVMM 2008 R2, Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

has anyone here gotten esxi 5 to work within hyper-v on server 2012???

also hyper-v does make an awesome desktop hypervisor actually...

and I am able to run linux distros pretty easily... now on fedora I am unable to get the networking working correctly.

I can on ubuntu though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='MorganX' timestamp='1354486397' post='595364226']
I'm not sure why you think Authority can't be delegated with these products, this is one of the Windows Server\AD platform's strengths IMO.
[/quote]

[color=#222222]I was explicitly referring to Hyper-V virtualization [b]without[/b] SCVMM in my comment. Both Hyper-V and vSphere lack "easy" granular delegation without their management platform. In both cases SCVMM and vCenter are really just flat out required. Even in the case of Hyper-V, I can use it perfectly well without SCVMM for small scenarios, however I mostly dislike using it without SCVMM in control.[/color]

[color=#222222]When I want to delegate a Hyper-V server, sure, Windows Server is good enough on its own. When I want to delegate groups of VM's (clouds), hell no, SCVMM is needed. Training someone else to delegate without SCVMM? Keeping track of delegations? OMG, nightmare.[/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='remixedcat' timestamp='1354491852' post='595364354']
has anyone here gotten esxi 5 to work within hyper-v on server 2012???

also hyper-v does make an awesome desktop hypervisor actually...

and I am able to run linux distros pretty easily... now on fedora I am unable to get the networking working correctly.

I can on ubuntu though.
[/quote]You aren't going to be able to get one Hypervisor product to work within another - only one can have control of the hypervisor, and it's not presented to VMs anyway so ESXi wouldn't see one to manage to begin with.

As to your second question, Fedora should work fine with the legacy adapter, but you aren't going to get it to work (easily) with the synthetic network adapter with distributions on the 3.x kernel tree already (see [url="http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-virtualization-90/fedora-in-hyper-v-vm-943722/"]this[/url] for an example). If you need a distribution that uses RPMs and is from RedHat, you're better off using RedHat itself or CentOS, which are fully supported. If you want to try to recompile the 3.2 Integration Components from Microsoft to get things working, there are posts about this and Fedora 16 (which should be the same), but YMMV couldn't be more appropriate in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you cluberti ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='PGHammer' timestamp='1354488545' post='595364262']
That is, in fact, why I flat-out love Hyper-V Virtual Machine Manager (which every iteration of Hyper-V, both for Windows client and Windows Server, includes) - if you're familiar (at all) with Microsoft Management Console (which is the core WMI console for Windows since XP) and the snap-ins thereof, you'll grasp HVVMM rather easily because that's what it's based on. If you have sensible User and Group Policies set in your network, then each sort of Administrator won't be dealing with things they aren't supposed to; further you can go anywhere from very coarse-grained to very fine-grained on types of Administrators (for example, you can have a separate Administrator just for VMs - they won't have a use for System Center; instead, they will have HVVMM). If you want to combine virtual and physical machine integration, HVVMM acts as a System Center snap-in, so there is still no real learning curve. That is quite different from ESXi and vCenter - they are wildly different from each other and, more importantly, neither is compatible with MMC, let alone System Center (which is, as I pointed out, fully compatible with MMC). The issue with vmWare (and vCenter) is non-Windows client support (there, for now, vmWare is admittedly superior) and inertia - those that are used to using vmWare won't be in any great rush to move to anything else.
[/quote]

The Hyper-V MMC is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='cluberti' timestamp='1354496640' post='595364534']
You aren't going to be able to get one Hypervisor product to work within another - only one can have control of the hypervisor, and it's not presented to VMs anyway so ESXi wouldn't see one to manage to begin with.
[/quote]

This is no longer true. ESXi 5.0 & 5.1 can have nested virtualization enabled, and can pass Intel VT-x & EPT, as well as AMD-V & RVI directly to a VM. This is fine for test labs, but I'd strongly advise against putting it into production. There are [b]definitely [/b]going to be performance limitations to this.

[url="http://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2011/07/how-to-enable-support-for-nested-64bit.html"]http://www.virtually...sted-64bit.html[/url]

You cannot do this under Hyper-V (at this time). So far as I know, Hyper-V lacks nested virtualization support entirely. If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only thing that is holding running esxi within hyper-v is the virtual network adapter. there is no driver for esxi made for the network adapter emulated by Hyper-V is the DEC 21140/Intel 82579V. There is an esxi customizer tool avalible on http://www.v-front.de/p/esxi-customizer.html that I've found and tried a few pre-packaged drivers and none work so far :( I'll keep trying every now and then.... :( I really hope that vmware provides the drivers becuase that is an actual physical network adapter that is widely popular and people had to pull teeth to get it working on a real physical server, as a result, or purchase another network interface card.... which is pretty messed up. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.