Type 1 Hypervisor Poll

[Xahid]

I expect there will be a free web client in the next few versions that will be built into the hypervisor and won't require vCenter and replace the native client.  I just hope it is completely HTML5 (even the console) and doesn't require any plug-ins.

I hope so, but hey, its Microsoft!

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I hope so, but hey, its Microsoft!

 

ESXi is made by VMWare, not Microsoft.

[Xahid]

ESXi is made by VMWare, not Microsoft.

Oops, I thought, you were talking about Microsoft System Center (too much MS on my mind)

[PGHammer]

Not going to happen. Embrace the Web Client. :)

There is no reason why I would ever recommend running anything else but the hypervisor roles on your hosts, unless it was directly related to the purposes of virtualization.

I never said it was recommended - however, unlike ESXi, Hyper-V doesn't require it (businesses have things called budgets - there are times that a dedicated hypervisor server is not practical due to cost).

[PGHammer]

I expect there will be a free web client in the next few versions that will be built into the hypervisor and won't require vCenter and replace the native client.  I just hope it is completely HTML5 (even the console) and doesn't require any plug-ins.

How much is Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection?  Last I heard, it costs nothing for iOS and Android, and is included with Windows 8 or later (and is a free download for Windows 7).

 

The bigger problem with ALL remote desktop software (and why there is a lack of HTML5 support) is security (for reasons having to do with regulations such as HIPAA and Sarbanes-Oxley).  Now there ARE plug-ins/add-ins for browsers (Citrix WebFrame, for example) - however, they don't rely on HTML for security.

[PGHammer]

KVM for my own machines (Co-lo'd) via proxmox although I'm removing most of that kit now.

 

Also there is a Free Hyper-V server edition available ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dn205299.aspx ), I have no idea if you need something else to manage it as the last time I played with the standalone Hyper-V server it was the 2008 version and it seemed to have nothing more than a CLI interface.

Hyper-V Server can be managed by the same tools used to manage Hyper-V on Windows 8 or Windows Server - there is, quite literally, no difference there.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

How much is Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection? Last I heard, it costs nothing for iOS and Android, and is included with Windows 8 or later (and is a free download for Windows 7).

The bigger problem with ALL remote desktop software (and why there is a lack of HTML5 support) is security (for reasons having to do with regulations such as HIPAA and Sarbanes-Oxley). Now there ARE plug-ins/add-ins for browsers (Citrix WebFrame, for example) - however, they don't rely on HTML for security.

There's a massive difference between the VMWare console capability and a remote desktop connection (RDP, VNC etc) so I am not sure how you regard the two as comparable.

The VMWare console allows entry into the virtual BIOS/EFI, see the screen as the OS boots etc. I guess HP's ILO and what it does at a hardware level would be a fairer comparison.

[The_Observer]

Home Server, Hyper-V and ESXi. Both to learn and use for daliy things. But im more interested in how many people here use Hyper-V Server and not Windows Server with Hyper-V

[PGHammer]

There's a massive difference between the VMWare console capability and a remote desktop connection (RDP, VNC etc) so I am not sure how you regard the two as comparable.

The VMWare console allows entry into the virtual BIOS/EFI, see the screen as the OS boots etc. I guess HP's ILO and what it does at a hardware level would be a fairer comparison.

If you are referring to the vmWare console, then you are talking at-hypervisor management; there is ZERO difference there if the hypervisor uses a GUI (Windows Server 2003R2 or later, Windows 8, eSXi, etc.)

 

The issues with managing hypervisors come with headless/remote management - there, ALL the type 1 hypervisors have their biases.  Can you use the vmWare console to access eSXi remotely?  You CAN use the Hyper-V management console to access any other Hyper-V server you have rights to.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

If you are referring to the vmWare console, then you are talking at-hypervisor management; there is ZERO difference there if the hypervisor uses a GUI (Windows Server 2003R2 or later, Windows 8, eSXi, etc.)

 

The issues with managing hypervisors come with headless/remote management - there, ALL the type 1 hypervisors have their biases.  Can you use the vmWare console to access eSXi remotely?  You CAN use the Hyper-V management console to access any other Hyper-V server you have rights to.

 

It may be that your point is subtle or that I am just dumb, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

Can you try again for my benefit?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

If you are referring to the vmWare console, then you are talking at-hypervisor management; there is ZERO difference there if the hypervisor uses a GUI (Windows Server 2003R2 or later, Windows 8, eSXi, etc.)

 

The issues with managing hypervisors come with headless/remote management - there, ALL the type 1 hypervisors have their biases.  Can you use the vmWare console to access eSXi remotely?  You CAN use the Hyper-V management console to access any other Hyper-V server you have rights to.

You're not making a whole lot of sense here... The Virtual Console you'll access in ESXi (either Thick or Web client) is designed to mimic the "server console" (meaning when you have a Monitor, Keyboard, and Mouse and are sitting in front of it). As Fahim S. eluded to earlier the best comparison to this in the physical space is an IPMI compliant BMC or being physically connected to the box. You wouldn't use the ESXi Virtual Console to access the console for the physical ESXi host... You would use the BMC on the box.

 

All Hypervisors will provide some sort of Virtual Console support, otherwise you'll have a problem even getting an OS loaded into the VM (ignoring net boot scenarios for sake of discussion)...

 

Maybe I too am lost in what you're attempting to say?

[Sgt Beavis]

I have multiple clients with wide range of hypervisors.  Most of them are vSphere with a large contingent of Hyper-V (especially on the Citrix deployments we do).  Of course, here at HP, we have a large and growing segment of KVM running under OpenStack.  I don't personally have experience with that but looks like I won't have much choice but to learn as we combine our cloud products.  

 

I lean heavily towards vSphere because it is highly reliable and extremely feature rich.  It is also relatively easy to setup and maintain.  I even had my first VSAN deployment last week.  

[Dashel]

ESX/Xen/HyperV but consolidating to HyperV Server 2012 R2.

[Praetor]

Hyper-V, Citrix and VMware here.

I lean heavily towards vSphere because it is highly reliable and extremely feature rich.  It is also relatively easy to setup and maintain.  I even had my first VSAN deployment last week.  

 

Problem is price; i'm seeing lots of clients of mine fleeing from VMware into Hyper-V just because of that.

[Guest]

Hyper-V's networking setup process and all that crap is just frustrating. Always have to go through hours of stupid debugging and testing when switching networks.

 

How freaking hard is to make a freaking stupid button that enables NAT-like networking for crap's sake, like VMWare and VirtualBox, dammit?

[Sgt Beavis]

Hyper-V, Citrix and VMware here.

 

Problem is price; i'm seeing lots of clients of mine fleeing from VMware into Hyper-V just because of that.

Oh yea, I see that with some.  Usually when they don't see value in VMware's feature set.  As the old saying goes, price only matters in the absence of value.   Most of my customers are very large companies with a need for highly available hosting solutions.  That's not a dig at Hyper-V, it used to be a laughable product but now it is a legit alternative.  

[Praetor]

VMware is incredible but very expensive to justify for a Small Business (SB) or even Medium Business (MB). Hyper-V, on the other hand, starting with Server 2012 R2, has great performance and features packed with a good price.

 

I'm currently working on a client that is a big group of enterprises that has several clusters with several nodes: all of them running Hyper-V because the license agreement is damn cheap (when compared with VMware). Also most of the SB/MB don't even have an dedicated IT and they careless if their servers are powered by VMware or some other brand: they only care if their apps are always available, perform very well and require the least amount of maintenance.

[duddit2]

Esxi here. Got into virtualization with esxi and just stuck with it.

Also from what I've seen and haven't put much research into it hyper v requires a windows server to run on which means technically you would pay for 2(?) Licenses instead of 1 like you would with VMware esxi.

Again that's my impression and I could be wrong.

 

you don't.

 

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mstechsa/archive/2012/12/04/download-microsoft-hyper-v-server-2012-for-free.aspx

[Marshalus Veteran]

Hyper-V's networking setup process and all that crap is just frustrating. Always have to go through hours of stupid debugging and testing when switching networks.

 

How freaking hard is to make a freaking stupid button that enables NAT-like networking for crap's sake, like VMWare and VirtualBox, dammit?

 

VMware ESXi does not do NAT.

[DeltaXray]

ESXi.  Hyper V simply won't get cleared for the networks I work on because you still have a huge attack surface area sat underneath your VMs. Even Server Core is massive.

 

From a security point of view ESXi is the only one that will be cleared for the foreseeable future for the networks I work on.

 

I have used Hyper V and Xen Server a lot in the past, Hyper V does the job and Xen Server isn't even worth the effort to type the name, even Citrix have given up on it now.  vSphere is still undoubtedly the gold standard in virtualisation right now.

[Praetor]

ESXi.  Hyper V simply won't get cleared for the networks I work on because you still have a huge attack surface area sat underneath your VMs. Even Server Core is massive.

 

From a security point of view ESXi is the only one that will be cleared for the foreseeable future for the networks I work on.

 

Can you please backup your claims, sir? That's because it's a major claim.

[DeltaXray]

Can you please backup your claims, sir? That's because it's a major claim.

 

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

[PGHammer]

It may be that your point is subtle or that I am just dumb, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

Can you try again for my benefit?

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.

[richp21]

Xenserver also has many underlying errors with space reclamation, ghost snapshots and and even space requirements. Stay away from Xen if possible.  My first choice would be ESXi before Hyper-V as well.  I don't work directly ON them as much, But the software I support at work runs directly on them and I by FAR fix less issues on VMware than Xen.  They have problems lingering on 6.2 back from the 5.5, 5.6 days.  

[DeltaXray]

Xenserver also has many underlying errors with space reclamation, ghost snapshots and and even space requirements. Stay away from Xen if possible.  My first choice would be ESXi before Hyper-V as well.  I don't work directly ON them as much, But the software I support at work runs directly on them and I by FAR fix less issues on VMware than Xen.  They have problems lingering on 6.2 back from the 5.5, 5.6 days.  

 

Oh man the amount of issues i've had to deal with with Xen Server and in particular those ghost snapshots... people go with it because it is free and then end up paying more in support than if they had gone with one of the real hypervisors ESXi or Hyper-V.   In fact over the past 2-3 years the majority of work i've done with Xen Server has been migrating people off of it!