Type 1 Hypervisor Poll

[richp21]

Good ol' leaf coleasce.

[Praetor]

Absolutely.  With Hyper-V you are still relying on a full fat Windows installation underneath it. Or if you opt for a Core install that's still 5-odd gigs. So that's a huge underlying OS for a hypervisor and huge attack area.  ESXi is 190-odd MB.

 

There's a raft of other things which make it more insecure (at least to the official clearance bodies I work with) such as un-hardened drivers which make it unable to be cleared for use in networks I work on.

 

I know this is from the vmware website but it is pretty well documented elsewhere, there is a pretty valid ESXi v Hyper V comparison here: http://www.vmware.com/why-choose-vmware/robust/robust-foundation.html

 

actually, it's the opposite; once you enable Hyper-V, the hypervisor just sits and you use in reality a VM running the Windows Server OS. The fact that it occupiess space more then VMware doesn't mean much; the hyper-v server 2012 r2 occupies like 5GB but includes tools for management while ESXi doesn't.

 

Also about the security of Hyper-V: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn741283.aspx; it can be hardened, like everything else (drivers, for example, in the Hyper-V Server variant, can only be the OEM of MS versions).

 

And for a list of features; this one is more recent and from MS: http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmayer/archive/2013/09/24/vmware-or-microsoft-comparing-vsphere-5-5-and-windows-server-2012-r2-at-a-glance.aspx

 

Don't forget that one of the big issues with VMware is cost: while a top notch hypervisor, one must add to the bill vSphere, vCenter, vCloud, etc to use all the cool features (some of them are truly necessary, others are just bonuses that add up value to the product). With Hyper-v you just add SC 2012 R2: the total cost is much lower.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I am asking can you access ALL VMs you have rights to via a single console (vmWare, that is)?  Can the thick/Web client be used to access both local AND remote virtual vmWare/eSXi-based machines?  That is what I mean by *biases* - some clients will allow access to remote/headless VMs, but not local ones (that had long been a problem with the eSXi Web client, for example).  That isn't the case with Microsoft RDC - by contrast, it can be used to access any Hyper-V VM you have rights to - no matter where it is on the planet; and that includes local VMs.

 

What do you mean by local and remote here?  By definition all my VMs are remote from the machine I access them from.

[PGHammer]

What do you mean by local and remote here?  By definition all my VMs are remote from the machine I access them from.

I mean VMs hosted on the machine you are on vs. VMs elsewhere.

 

Unlike some type 1 hypervisors, Hyper-V's management tools don't require the host to be capable of hosting VMs (I can manage Hyper-V from Windows 8, even if the management platform is utterly SLAT-incapable - examples being the E3xxx and Qxxxx I have mentioned before - neither group of CPUs supports SLAT) - can you manage ESXi away from the host using VMware client software (Player, Workstation, Fusion, etc. or even a standalone management console).

 

In other words, location of the VM itself is irrelevant from a management standpoint.  (Is that the case with other type I hypervisors?)

[Praetor]

I mean VMs hosted on the machine you are on vs. VMs elsewhere.

 

Unlike some type 1 hypervisors, Hyper-V's management tools don't require the host to be capable of hosting VMs (I can manage Hyper-V from Windows 8, even if the management platform is utterly SLAT-incapable - examples being the E3xxx and Qxxxx I have mentioned before - neither group of CPUs supports SLAT) - can you manage ESXi away from the host using VMware client software (Player, Workstation, Fusion, etc. or even a standalone management console).

 

In other words, location of the VM itself is irrelevant from a management standpoint.  (Is that the case with other type I hypervisors?)

 

Yes, you can even manage Server Core from within Windows 8, so the correct is VM Host is independent of management tools. In fact the server core version is pretty much like the ESXi, just a host for the VMs and nothing much.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I mean VMs hosted on the machine you are on vs. VMs elsewhere.

 

Unlike some type 1 hypervisors, Hyper-V's management tools don't require the host to be capable of hosting VMs (I can manage Hyper-V from Windows 8, even if the management platform is utterly SLAT-incapable - examples being the E3xxx and Qxxxx I have mentioned before - neither group of CPUs supports SLAT) - can you manage ESXi away from the host using VMware client software (Player, Workstation, Fusion, etc. or even a standalone management console).

 

In other words, location of the VM itself is irrelevant from a management standpoint.  (Is that the case with other type I hypervisors?)

This is a key feature of Type-1 Hypervisors. They are maintained using tools on remote machines. So, yes you can use VMWare management tools to maintain or control VMs on alternative machines. In fact, you can't control the VMs from an ESXi host directly except for in a very limited fashion.

[sc302 Veteran]

I mean VMs hosted on the machine you are on vs. VMs elsewhere.

 

Unlike some type 1 hypervisors, Hyper-V's management tools don't require the host to be capable of hosting VMs (I can manage Hyper-V from Windows 8, even if the management platform is utterly SLAT-incapable - examples being the E3xxx and Qxxxx I have mentioned before - neither group of CPUs supports SLAT) - can you manage ESXi away from the host using VMware client software (Player, Workstation, Fusion, etc. or even a standalone management console).

 

In other words, location of the VM itself is irrelevant from a management standpoint.  (Is that the case with other type I hypervisors?)

I manage my vm hosts from my pc.  I connect to the host through a vcenter server which manages the hosts and storage.  This vcenter server can be an appliance within the vm cluster, it can be a appliance on another vm cluster, or it can be a windows server (physical or virtual).  I don't manage the vm host directly on the host, it is mainly done from my pc. I don't even ssh to the vm host at all, which is possible to make some system changes.  Everything in vmware is done through a gui either the physical client loaded onto a computer or the web client.

[PGHammer]

This is a key feature of Type-1 Hypervisors. They are maintained using tools on remote machines. So, yes you can use VMWare management tools to maintain or control VMs on alternative machines. In fact, you can't control the VMs from an ESXi host directly except for in a very limited fashion.

That same issue can - and does - actually constrain some type-1 hypervisors from SMB usage - a requirement for remote administration.

 

Hyper-V, on the other hand, does not care.

 

If you are a start-up, or an established small-business - and you need VMs - being able to manage them locally (and at a cost of either little or nothing) is one heck of a benefit.  Further, especially with Hyper-V (as opposed to other type-1 hypervisors) you can componentize the management tools and use only what you actually need.  (System Center is like Office - you don't need the whole suite.)

[sc302 Veteran]

I can manage vmware on a local computer or a computer attached to the network or through a vpn.  How does that restrict smb usage?  They don't have computers attached to the network that they use to run MS Office or access the internet?  With vmware you need 2 computers on site, the host and another to manage it.  I don't know of a smb that only has a server that everyone crowds around to take turns using it because it is the only computer on the network.  My wifes company has 5 users and 1 server...everyone has a computer...I can either use a laptop I bring on site to manage the vmware hosts or I can use one of the other computers to manage it. 

[+Fahim S. MVC]

That same issue can - and does - actually constrain some type-1 hypervisors from SMB usage - a requirement for remote administration.

 

Hyper-V, on the other hand, does not care.

 

If you are a start-up, or an established small-business - and you need VMs - being able to manage them locally (and at a cost of either little or nothing) is one heck of a benefit.  Further, especially with Hyper-V (as opposed to other type-1 hypervisors) you can componentize the management tools and use only what you actually need.  (System Center is like Office - you don't need the whole suite.)

 

I struggle to think of a use case in which this makes sense and a type-2 hypervisor wouldn't be more appropriate.  Can you give an example?

[SionicIon]

A little off topic but I'd really like to see Microsoft open up the hypervisor implementation on Xbox One and let's others use it.

To be able to run virtual machines on bare metal but have an interface to switch between them without remoting in, would essentially allow multiple operating systems to run natively at the same time.

I played with these hypervisors before but you have to remote in. Or if you're running it on your desktop, it runs in a window and hinders the experience.

I want to be able to utilize the hardware I'm running on to it's full potential but to be able to create snapshots or pause and switch between OSs.

Native VHD boot came close but that wasn't virtualizing. But it is nice having that option because you can essentially encapsulate the OS's partitioning and everything into one file. Easier management.

Microsoft should take it one step further and give us the advantages of virtualization alongside the advantages of running the OS natively.

[remixedcat]

Hyper-v

[Raa]

I've tried both Hyper-V & VMware... It's VMware for me!

[Praetor]

I use daily VMWare and Hyper-V and i prefer both; they do have their strongs and weaks, both are great products.