Getting another 60 days out of ESXi

astorrs

Jordus wrote: »

Granted, youd still be at 32 VMs with Hyper-V but you at least wouldnt be running a single point of failure.

OMG. Don't even get me started on single points of failure with Hyper-V.

Jordus

tiersten wrote: »

A 32GB limit is a feature now?

Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote


Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.

dynamik

Jordus wrote: »

Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote

You were making it sound advantageous and beneficial. He rephrased what you said to demonstrate the absurdity of that logic.

Jordus wrote: »

Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.

I must be reading a different thread. He has consistently backed up his arguments with detailed and accurate information.

(He also hasn't had to resort to insults)

tiersten

Jordus wrote: »

Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote

You said that 2x32GB Hyper-V servers would be better than 1x96GB ESXi server because it'd be equivalent in price and performance with the added bonus that there isn't a single hardware point of failure.

Unless you're only running 16 VMs on your 2x32GB Hyper-V cluster then you don't have sufficient capacity to handle failover should 1 of your servers die. If you're only running 16 VMs then your ESXi box wouldn't need 96GB (well 64GB) in the first place and it'd work fine with one of your 32GB servers.

Jordus wrote: »

Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.

I've clearly stated what VirtualCenter does and what the free version ESXi of does/doesn't have. I don't see how I'm grasping at straws by telling you what ESXi can do.

JDMurray

Jordus wrote: »

ESX Server has a lot of features, some of which are gone if you DONT purchase their hypervisor manager software.

"Gone" is not the correct word. The basic functionality of ESX/i is extended by VirtualCenter and vSphere. If you don't by VirtualCenter or vSphere then you don't get the extended features for managing ESX/i (for example, cloning and syspreping VMs).

What you need to compare are the basic feature sets offered by ESX/i and Hypervisor Server 2008 and determine which one has the best set of features for free. Comparing ESX/i to Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V is apples-and-oranges; they are not used to solve the same problems.

Jordus

If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

BTW i havnt resorted to insults either. But i will say that twisting words is no way to win an argument, unless maybe you are a lawyer.

Im just playing devils advocate for fun here. The only true issue i have with VMware is their choice of pricing and prereqs for their certifications.

JDMurray

tiersten wrote: »

The free version of ESXi loses two things. The ability to be managed by VirtualCenter and the ability to do write operations via SNMP. I don't see either one being a particularly big problem.

Losing the ability to be managed via VirtualCenter isn't a big loss since you'd have a proper ESXi license if you have VirtualCenter.

Losing the ability to do write operations via SNMP is a little annoying if you want to use RCLI but you can do everything via VI Client anyway. You just can't script it.

Don't forget that read/write access to some of the calls in the VirtualCenter API is also lost.

And all of these features are lost only after the 60-day eval period in ESXi expires. (Remember the API access bug in Update 3.)

JDMurray

Jordus wrote: »

If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

I would. After spending the $$$$ for 96GB of RAM and the mobo to hold it, I'd need to economize by using as much free software as possible.

astorrs

Jordus wrote: »

If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

BTW i havnt resorted to insults either. But i will say that twisting words is no way to win an argument, unless maybe you are a lawyer.

Im just playing devils advocate for fun here. The only true issue i have with VMware is their choice of pricing and prereqs for their certifications.

A basic Dell PowerEdge R610 server can scale to 96GB of RAM and those can be had for under $2500 base. Servers geared at virtualization can usually scale to 128-256GB of RAM these days (some even higher).

I think sometimes your later comments have turned somewhat personal and that was the problem.

What's wrong with their pricing? Sometimes I don't agree with specific aspects of it (like the Enterprise>Enterprise Plus fiasco) but overall I think it's logical and does provide value - and after all pricing is mostly determined by market demand/tolerance.

Lots of vendors have pre-reqs for their certs (and more are actually moving towards required courses). Personally I'd rather they force people to take a course and have the cert remain somewhat more unique these days (and more in demand as a result) than have a flood of brain dumpers and paper certs devalue my certification.

dynamik

astorrs wrote: »

Lots of vendors have pre-reqs for their certs (and more are actually moving towards required courses). Personally I'd rather they force people to take a course and have the cert remain somewhat more unique these days (and more in demand as a result) than have a flood of brain dumpers and paper certs devalue my certification.

While it can still be improved upon, I think what MS is doing is a good compromise; requiring a $3k course for every cert seems a bit extreme.

astorrs

dynamik wrote: »

While it can still be improved upon, I think what MS is doing is a good compromise; requiring a $3k course for every cert seems a bit extreme.

VMware/Citrix are both moving in the same direction as well and once those exams methods filter down to those certs I would hope they drop the course requirement as well. In the meantime what I said stands (in my opinion of course).

HeroPsycho

Jordus wrote: »

If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

Because HyperV can't do memory de-dup, you might need that much RAM compared to ESXi running the same VM's.

Not to mention memory overcommit, as was mentioned before...

HyperV can't do either, no matter how premium a package you buy in the software.

astorrs

HeroPsycho wrote: »

Because HyperV can't do memory de-dup, you might need that much RAM compared to ESXi running the same VM's.

Not to mention memory overcommit, as was mentioned before....

Yeah sorry, I always refer to the various memory overcommitment technologies together (transparent page sharing, vmmemctl aka memory balooning, and vmkswap).

astorrs

Just an FYI...

Massimo posted an excellent comparison of the different server virtualization solutions on his blog today. Once you get past the formatting the data is quite complete.

Virtual Infrastructure products: features comparison

blargoe

I think when it comes down to it, HyperV will have a huge advantage with shops that are new to virtualization, have smaller budgets, less skilled IT staff, and/or are 100% Microsoft shops. The features included even in the free edition will be enough a lot of the time. It will be more than a capable solution in any of those cases. I can see why anyone from that perspective would balk at the price of vCenter and ESX.

HeroPsycho

blargoe wrote: »

I think when it comes down to it, HyperV will have a huge advantage with shops that are new to virtualization, have smaller budgets, less skilled IT staff, and/or are 100% Microsoft shops. The features included even in the free edition will be enough a lot of the time. It will be more than a capable solution in any of those cases. I can see why anyone from that perspective would balk at the price of vCenter and ESX.

Don't get me wrong, VMware wouldn't have free solutions like VMware Server or ESXi free edition if it weren't for Microsoft releasing Virtual Server 2005 and now Hyper-V for free.

People could in that perception balk at VMware, but it's out of ignorance, and exactly what Microsoft is trying to spin. The reality though is nevertheless that Hyper-V with SCVMM isn't anymore free than ESXi with Virtual Center. Compare Hyper-V to ESXi free edition if you're looking for a free solution. If you want to pay more for ease of management, compare Hyper-V with SCVMM to ESXi with Virtual Center. Is VMware more costly in that scenario from a software licensing perspective? Absolutely. But the same orgs who are 100% Microsoft shops didn't opt for it over Linux because Microsoft is the cheaper solution from a licensing perspective, either.

I guess my point is if orgs choose Microsoft Hyper-V over ESXi because there's a perception that ESXi isn't free, or it's ridiculously less capable than Hyper-V in the free edition without actually looking at which solution fits them better objectively, then just come out and say you're going with it because it's Microsoft.

astorrs

The new vSphere Essentials and Essentials Plus (inc. HA and backups) bundles for SMBs are really competitive at $995 and $3500 respectively for 3 dual proc servers and vCenter. In fact vSphere Essentials at $995 for those 3 servers is a steal when you consider the centralized management and higher density you get with ESX over Hyper-V. The only challenge is shared storage which is still a stumbling block for most SMBs. Once HP or Dell or someone markets a solution like LeftHand at SMBs where the servers use local storage and replicate it between themselves you could come up with a fantastic option for smaller installations (up to 30-40 VMs say).

Jordus

Its pretty wrong of you guys to assume that one would only choose hyper-V because the one making the choices is stupid/ignorant.

We chose to use Hyper-V at work because Microsoft offers HUGE price cuts for public sector, VMware just wouldnt come close to matching this. And in this sector it all comes down to what you can get for the money.

Is vmware the better virtulization solution? No doubt. But sadly that isnt the only factor that goes into deciding on somethings use.

We can get copies of Server 2008 DC for 250$ (with hyperv) or the free hyperv server, and the ENTIRE SC suite for around 1200$.

So perhaps you can see the justification here.

HeroPsycho

HeroPsycho wrote: »

I guess my point is if orgs choose Microsoft Hyper-V over ESXi because there's a perception that ESXi isn't free, or it's ridiculously less capable than Hyper-V in the free edition without actually looking at which solution fits them better objectively, then just come out and say you're going with it because it's Microsoft.

Tell me where that says if you go with Hyper-V, you in every case did it out of ignorance.

And I see your justification. My argument was never that you shouldn't have gone with Hyper-V. It was the argument you made about ESXi Free Edition being ridiculously crippled to the point it's not competitive with standalone Hyper-V.

electricity

I dont post here much (more of a lurker), but I have noticed that whatever this Jordus person posts, it sure kicks up dust. Healthy discussions most of them, but yeah, he/she sure has different opinion than anyone else.

Jordus

electricity wrote: »

I dont post here much (more of a lurker), but I have noticed that whatever this Jordus person posts, it sure kicks up dust. Healthy discussions most of them, but yeah, he/she sure has different opinion than anyone else.

You said it yourself, healthy discussion. Thats why i do it. Very often what i say isnt actually how I feel, its just that I like to see some knowledgeable guys defend their beleifs and why they feel that way.

Sometimes you have to prod to get really good insights

Noone should take anything personally. It is, afterall, the interwebs.

tiersten

Jordus wrote: »

Very often what i say isnt actually how I feel, its just that I like to see some knowledgeable guys defend their beleifs and why they feel that way.

Hmm. What you're basically saying is that you're tr olling? (No idea why the forum filters that word) I don't mind having a discussion with somebody if that is what they really think but not if they're just doing it to provoke a reaction.

HeroPsycho

Now, I'm getting verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic, the Vienna Boys Choir is neither a choir, nor boys. Discuss!