Virtual Server crash course?

[CelticWhisper]

I'm looking to familiarize myself with server virtualization, as we may potentially have a business case for it (but we're not sure yet). However, in looking at the available options...I'm a bit intimidated by how much is out there versus how little time I have to really get into any of it.

I'm seeing

-VMWare Server

-VMWare Player

-Microsoft Virtual Server

-Microsoft HYPER-V

-XenServer

-VirtualBox

-Citrix

and a whole host of others.

Are any of these particularly well-suited for a small, mostly-desktop-Windows operation with a few remote users who may need hosted applications that won't run well over a VPN connection (e.g. an ERP client that has to pull SQL data, which is dog-slow when run natively on a VPN'd PC but runs fine on an in-house PC over VPN RDP)?

Thanks!

[+BudMan MVC]

Those are not comparable products your listing there. You have type 1 and 2 plus desktop stuff in there.

If your wanting to host VMs at your business then I would throw out type 2s (Full blown OS on machine - then vm software runs on that). This would be Vmware Server, Virtualbox (more desktop use - but is making strives to be run on server, etc) but still type 2.

You left off esxi (vsphere) which is prob your best choice - FREE version, and type 1. Will run on loads of different hardware.

Xen was purchased by Citrix, so not sure why listing them twice?

Player is just desktop, and MS virtual server is OLD.. I think latest version is 2005 r2, does not even support running 64bit guests.

Look into esxi - its FREE! for the small shop without need of fancy stuff like vmotion and HA, etc. http://www.vmware.co...r/overview.html

[CelticWhisper]

Will definitely look into ESXi - thanks for that!

Going to see what I can find about type-1 vs type-2, but in case I don't turn up anything, can you clarify that? Sounds like one is lower-level, maybe some kind of hardware hypervisor or something?

Trying to learn as much as I can but I seem to have jumped into the deep end without realizing.

Thanks again, you've given me a definite starting point and that helps immensely.

[+BudMan MVC]

Your about there, type 1 is low level hypervisor - very min type of OS to just manage the VMs. Pretty much all resources of hardware get to go to the VMs, in a type 2 there is a full blow OS running on the hardware - and then your just running virtual hypervisor on top of them. Less resources go to the VMs

That is fine in a desktop sort of thing where you might need to fireup a vm to safe surf, or test some new application out, etc. But if what your trying to do is provide VMs in a production sort of setup or even in lab get the most bang for your hardware - type 1 is the way to go.

Think of it this way type 1 is native bare metal hypervisor where type 2 is hosted, running on full blow OS that has access to hardware. So in type 1 your only 1 level away from hardware, in type 2 your two levels away - the hypervisor, then the OS then the bare metal.