Jump to content



Photo
[microsoft] [hyper-v]

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#16 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 02 December 2012 - 22:13

Snip


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

… they are both minimally usable and provide a poor user experience

… they cost more energy to support and use.

… they really can’t have authority delegated in a refined and meaningful way. Although, some highly skilled system engineer class techs could possibly do it for small cases… the energy costs would be absurdly high.


Wow. Just go with SCCM, that's where the common platform and familiar tools begin to pay off. If you have that many desktops and enough servers to be serious about Virtualization, if you don't have an FTE to dedicate, between desktop support and your server team they can manage the environment with SCCM, as well as package and OS deployment.

The most, cumbersome part of management IMO is and always will be patch management. Which SCCM can handles as well.

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.


#17 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 02 December 2012 - 22:49

I don’t find it absurd most of the time. As things scale up, the need for greater management starts to exist. What was suited for the smaller environment is unacceptable for the larger. As management needs scale up, so too do the resources required to make the management solution. It takes energy (cost, effort, time, etc) to build a management solution. That solution is intended to look at a “larger picture” than the original product. Use of that solution in our profession tends to cost a premium. You can do most things without a management solution, but it’ll “generally” cost more energy without one.

Look at it from a different perspective. An individual or small business may buy Windows desktops. No management solution may be needed, and no deployment solution may be needed. If you need some deployment, then the free Windows AIK Imagex.exe may be good enough. If it’s not, you upgrade to the paid version of WDS in Windows Server. But then that’s not enough for people who have a bigger picture, so then they need something that resolves that problem, and that’s when you get a much bigger management solution like System Center Configuration Manager. Obviously though, this is a big market, otherwise you wouldn’t have 15+ competitors in it just for supporting those desktops.

The picture is no different for Mac OS. You start mostly free (Mac OS Server/Radmind/DeployStudio), and then you pay out the rear for a real desktop/software management solution that can be used by many different entities within your enterprise. Though in this case the solution must be provided by a third party, as Apple doesn’t care that much Enterprise needs. (Apple Remote Desktop doesn’t count these days, this product behaves worse every OS revision between 10.6 and 10.8, and is in need of major TLC)

Management systems exist for management’s sake. It takes energy to create dedicated systems. It generally costs far less energy to use management products than make an in house solution. It took a team of people dedicated to looking at a different picture to come up with the management solution that was not part of what the original product set out to accomplish. There are definitely features within almost any management solution that should become part of the original product. Sometimes that management solution resolves some giant glaring flaws in the original product design. There are definitely configuration aspects within enterprise hypervisor management solutions that are drastically better than standalone product. So much better that it really points out that the original product has flaws that need to be resolved.


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


… they are both minimally usable and provide a poor user experience on their own (especially when compared to the user experience through the management product).

… they cost more energy to support and use. The more physical machines you have, the worse it becomes to lack the management platform.

… they really can’t have authority delegated in a refined and meaningful way. Although, some highly skilled system engineer class techs could possibly do it for small cases… the energy costs to support it over time would likely be absurdly high.


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.

#18 ITFiend

ITFiend

    ハッピー

  • Joined: 13-October 09
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1

Posted 02 December 2012 - 22:59

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.


I concur. As of Server 2008 R2 SP1, and SCVMM 2008 R2, Microsoft’s solutions became good enough compared to VMware’s solution. As of the 2012 product line, they really became equal's. As of 2012 SP1, Microsoft's 2012 virtualization products appear to 100% match or exceed vSphere. There may be specialized use cases that VMware solutions are still better for even compared to SC2012 SP1, but I don't know of any right now.

I work in education. Our servers were licensed for vSphere as the hypervisor, vCenter to manage vSphere, Windows Server and Linux as the guest VM’s, which we actually managed with System Center. This was the correct decision in 2004. It was the wrong decision as of 2011. 2008 R2 SP1 gained Dynamic Memory, the System Center 2012 CTP came out and proved Microsoft was going to be able to completely replace vCenter, and SCVMM 2008 R2 was good enough in the midterm. We took 1/5th of our production environment, and moved it to Hyper-V and SCVMM so we would be prepared to take greater action if System Center 2012 was all it should have been at release, which it mostly was. All the flaws in SC 2012 I’ve seen are resolved in the SP1 beta, including chargeback.


At this point we’re about 70% Hyper-V and 30% vSphere. They are fully comparable products. In fact, I would say that multi-processor support "feels" better in Hyper-V 3.0 than even in ESXi 5.1. I personally would like to see third-party benchmarks comparing something like a large SharePoint environment using 16+ virtual processors compared against the two products. In vSphere 5.0, the more processors you use, the worse it performs due to its processor queuing system (as I understand it anyway, ESXi 5.1 does it better, but I don't really know how much better). I haven't done direct benchmarks, I can't give quantifiable data, but Hyper-V "appears" to offer VM's greater overall I/O and performance than what I've seen in vSphere. I've barely used ESXi 5.1, and i'm not likely to progress further on that platform, so I'm not likely to generate much more of an opinion comparing the two in terms of raw VM performance.

#19 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 02 December 2012 - 23:44

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.

#20 ITFiend

ITFiend

    ハッピー

  • Joined: 13-October 09
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1

Posted 03 December 2012 - 00:50

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.


I was explicitly referring to Hyper-V virtualization without 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.

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.

#21 cluberti

cluberti

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-January 10

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:04

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.

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 this 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.

#22 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:15

Thank you cluberti ;)

#23 ITFiend

ITFiend

    ハッピー

  • Joined: 13-October 09
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:32

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.


The Hyper-V MMC is “ok” at best. It lacks a lot of features and polish of SCVMM. I really dislike using Hyper-V without SCVMM, but yes, for initial learning curve, anyone familiar with Microsoft products will have a pretty easy time with Hyper-V. Don’t get me wrong, the GUI is “good enough” I guess for folks running the version of Hyper-V included with Windows 8 Pro and Enterprise, or who don’t have complex enough server environments… but the Hyper-V MMC needs to be dumped and replaced with a lite version of SCVMM that shares the same GUI elements. There is absolutely nothing in common between the Hyper-V MMC and the SCVMM console except for the product being managed. I would not call the Hyper-V MMC a System Center snap in. System Center 2012 does not utilize any MMC consoles, nor does it look like them in any way (which is good, because the System Center GUI is much greater than any MMC snap in). They are separate entities, and in the case of the VM client connection window, SCVMM fails miserably compared to the Hyper-V client connection window. SCVMM can’t even paste to the VM this way.

Delegating Hyper-V to Administrators prior to Server 2012 was a wee complex. It was not obvious. It was in fact, highly annoying. SCVMM at least made that part of Hyper-V ignorable since it took over delegation control. Server 2012 now actually includes a Hyper-V Administrators group, which it frankly needed back in 2008 R1.

So far as inertia, unless VMware makes some major changes to their pricing schemes, it will probably grow quickly. The bottom line in is Microsoft’s favor right now, and that alone can drive decisions. So far as non-Microsoft VM support goes, Microsoft’s does support a lot of distributions by default these days, and the Hyper-V integration drivers are open source under GPL.

Frankly, the biggest failing Hyper-V and SCVMM combined have right now is smart card support to the VM. Microsoft really needs to address this issue directly within both consoles. RDP is not a "good enough" solution to the problem. There are a few industries that this limitation will directly hinder adoption of Hyper-V, and is likely its biggest failing in the 2012 product line.

#24 ITFiend

ITFiend

    ハッピー

  • Joined: 13-October 09
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:41

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.


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 definitely going to be performance limitations to this.

http://www.virtually...sted-64bit.html

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.

#25 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:48

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.d...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. :(

#26 cluberti

cluberti

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 01-January 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:57

I still can't think of a valid reason why you'd want to run one hypervisor kernel within another.....

#27 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:59

I do crazy stuff.... :cat:

#28 ITFiend

ITFiend

    ハッピー

  • Joined: 13-October 09
  • Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:09

I still can't think of a valid reason why you'd want to run one hypervisor kernel within another.....


Test labs, doing proof of concept stuff, etc. Sometimes you just gotta make due with the hardware at hand. Nesting virtualization has performance limitations, and not just due to double processor abstraction, but also double disk abstraction.

The first time I used Hyper-V was this way within VMware Workstation.

#29 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 96
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:42

until they break into the fortune 100, your not going to see any real converts.

http://www.vmware.co...of-vsphere.html
The Facts

Proven Leadership
  • 100% of the Fortune 100 and 99.5% of the Fortune 1000 run VMware.
  • VMware vSphere 5: InfoWorld.com’s Technology of the Year Award, for the 8th year in a row.

And in the Small shops, why should you fork over for hyper-V when you can just run esxi for FREE on hardware of your choice.

#30 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 25
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:14

"And in the Small shops, why should you fork over for hyper-V when you can just run esxi for FREE on hardware of your choice."


so does microsoft
http://www.microsoft...er/default.aspx