Challenge - convince me on the benefits of Hyper-V

royal wanted more Hyper-V on the forums so I'm posting this challenge.

I have experience with both products (and hold the VCP and MCTS: 70-652 certifications) and yet still lean heavily towards VMware's products. Does someone want to try to convince me why Hyper-V would be a good fit for a company with an existing compliment of physical servers (you pick the number) and no investment thus far in virtualization, or some other use case?

Oh and if someone can convince me I promise to wear a Hyper-V shirt or similar item (I'll let you decide, but no dresses, skirts, etc!) for at least one day at VMworld 2009 this summer.

Andrew

P.S. No cheating and saying its a brand new company with no existing infrastructure - that's so rare to encounter it's essentially off the map.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

HeroPsycho

It's Microsoft, so it's got to be better...

...

Right...?

tiersten

I prefer ESX over Hyper-V but knowing astorrs' will turn up at VMworld with a Hyper-V item would be funny so uhh... because its totally great and you can just get tech support from Microsoft... and ummm.... yeah.... I'll get back to you on this one.

blargoe

Companies entrenched in large (read, huge discounts) licensing agreements with Microsoft might find HyperV "good enough" if the company doesn't have the resources to spend on VMWare ESX

Companies that aren't looking to virtualize the entire datacenter but want to get rid of physical boxes for dev environment, get rid of old crappy servers or workstation boxes serving "utility" purposes would do just fine in HyperV

Companies with existing investments in the System Center suite would have HyperV more easily integrate with the existing configuration management infrastructure.

Sometimes, management is just more "comfortable" using an incumbent vendor like Microsoft, if they are historically a Microsoft shop.

*disclaimer: I don't see these as "good" reasons not to use ESX, but where HyperV would serve just fine

elaverick1981

I went to one of the Technet Live sessions introducing MS Virutalisation and I can't honestly offer you any benefits of Hyper-V over ESX, at least not in its current incarnation.
VMware was mentioned occasionally in the presentation but usually highly relucantly and almost always in terms of "this is a feature that they have that we'd like to add at somepoint". The one really good demo was of SCVMM, which does look quite nice, but is clearly geared towards Hyper-V and doesn't support 100% of ESX functionality.
(MED-V looks suprisingly cool, but that's not actually Hyper-V

)

msteinhilber

This is incredibly easy actually... but best left to pictures to describe the benefits of Hyper-V over ESX.

This is how excited Steve Ballmer gets about Hyper-V:

As you can clearly see, this is a man who knows he can trust Hyper-V for ALL of his virtualization needs. This is the face of a man who knows Hyper-V will dominate all and cannot be stopped by any except for maybe Chuck Norris.

Now on the other hand... this is what Steve Ballmer thinks about ESX:

I think this just about settles it....

Sorry... back on topic, I really don't have anything productive to add.

darkerosxx

I'm keeping pricing aside simply because I don't know the pricing scheme for vmware.

I won't attempt to win you over on hyper-v because I'm not convinced it's winning any virtualization battles. However, what I'm sure of is hyper-v comes in a business OS that includes business role applications other than virtualization roles, the applications the Windows Server family is known to hold a large market share for. For me, I would never use hyper-v as a stand-alone virtualization OS. However, if you're a small-medium business and want two Windows Server 08 servers, you buy the standard and get S08 and a free hyper-v'd S08 as well. If that's all you wanted in the first place, hyper-v is your perfect fit. The same goes for the datacenter version.

While I don't think hyper-v will win any battles against vmware for a pure virtualization OS, I think it holds value for cutting costs when vmware just isn't what you need.

dynamik

Are you including ESXi in the competition, or just the full-blown ESX? That'll change things because ESXi will void the price argument.

bertieb

It'll probably be of some use to IT depts in smaller companies who only have MS skills - it wont feel so much of a jump or scare them to much.

Then someone within said company will use VMware ESXi and they will quickly jump over to that.

blargoe

darkerosxx wrote: »

However, if you're a small-medium business and want two Windows Server 08 servers, you buy the standard and get S08 and a free hyper-v'd S08 as well. If that's all you wanted in the first place, hyper-v is your perfect fit. The same goes for the datacenter version.

Actually, you can buy a license for Windows server and get the virtual instances free regardless of which host OS you end up using on the physical hardware. If I were to get an 2008 Enterprise Edition license, I could use either Windows or ESX as the host, and run up to 4 guest instances of Enterprise or Standard Edition, or downgrade back as far as NT4. I think if you're buying Standard edition, you only get one virtual instance, which wouldn't be of any gain if you were using ESX as the host for the physical server for which you purchased the license. Datacenter is licensed per processor, if you buy a license for each processor you get unlimited Windows guests, host OS doesn't matter.

darkerosxx

Cool, thanks for noting that. I found this information about the licensing: Microsoft Licensing for Virtualization

The point I was making, though, is that if you wanted a small amount of Windows servers, I see value in using Hyper-v over vmware, because there's no reason to spend the extra money on vmware. At least there's no reason I'm aware of. I'm sure there's a reason somewhere for someone.

HeroPsycho

dynamik wrote: »

Are you including ESXi in the competition, or just the full-blown ESX? That'll change things because ESXi will void the price argument.

Actually it doesn't. Since you can run up to 4 VMs running Windows 2008 for the price of one server license on HyperV, Microsoft does have a price advantage only when virtualizing Win2k8. I'm just waiting for VMware to sue Microsoft for this as an unfair business practice...

(Because it is...)

Starke

I still prefer VMware over HyperV but I think I think HyperV is easier to use than ESX. HyperV would be cheaper if you want to use Quick Migration or Live Migration (soon) if you already had the 2008 licensing.

From a technical standpoint you can't connect a USB drive to an ESX VM but you can attach one to a HyperV VM.

astorrs

Well that generated a few responses to say the least.

I have a quasi interview to prepare for tomorrow, but if I get a chance later tonight I'll reply to these (some good points in here) otherwise tomorrow it is.

royal

Cause it is!

astorrs

royal wrote: »

Cause it is!

You start this whole things and that is what you bring to the table?! That MVP must have gone to your head

royal

astorrs wrote: »

You start this whole things and that is what you bring to the table?! That MVP must have gone to your head

I just like to see people take me serious when I'm not then get a whole discussion going.

Oh and... Virtual PC > ESX

Ahriakin

royal wrote: »

I just like to see people take me serious when I'm not then get a whole discussion going.

Oh and... Virtual PC > ESX

DOSBox FTW!

astorrs

Ahriakin wrote: »

DOSBox FTW!

No way, VM/370 FTW!

HeroPsycho

royal wrote: »

I just like to see people take me serious when I'm not then get a whole discussion going.

Oh and... Virtual PC > ESX

Yeah, but VMware Player pwnz VPC's bonez.

Ahriakin

astorrs wrote: »

No way, VM/370 FTW!

Touche Msr. Archaic

Turgon

msteinhilber wrote: »

This is incredibly easy actually... but best left to pictures to describe the benefits of Hyper-V over ESX.

This is how excited Steve Ballmer gets about Hyper-V:

As you can clearly see, this is a man who knows he can trust Hyper-V for ALL of his virtualization needs. This is the face of a man who knows Hyper-V will dominate all and cannot be stopped by any except for maybe Chuck Norris.

Now on the other hand... this is what Steve Ballmer thinks about ESX:

I think this just about settles it....

Sorry... back on topic, I really don't have anything productive to add.

Ewww Steve Ballmer is a man who sweats too much. Ugly too. That's fair

stupidboy

It looks like I've got this one. The reason is obvious.

Just think, you have installed Hyper-V, a couple of VMs and its been working OK for a month or so. Then there is a critical security fix that needs to be applied, you as a good admin install it ... but what's this the VMs will not come on-line any more .... NO!

Just think if you had VMware (I know there have been a couple of issues) things would just run.

Now which company needs a VM admin? Hyper-V could be a job for life

Unite my technoborthers and sisters for Hyper-V is the gateway to promised land ... a big fat pay check

HeroPsycho

stupidboy wrote: »

It looks like I've got this one. The reason is obvious.

Just think, you have installed Hyper-V, a couple of VMs and its been working OK for a month or so. Then there is a critical security fix that needs to be applied, you as a good admin install it ... but what's this the VMs will not come on-line any more .... NO!

Just think if you had VMware (I know there have been a couple of issues) things would just run.

Now which company needs a VM admin? Hyper-V could be a job for life

Unite my technoborthers and sisters for Hyper-V is the gateway to promised land ... a big fat pay check

In all fairness, if you think VMware just runs fine and never has issues, you're also living a pipedream. I'll take VMware any day of the week at this point, but it's not perfect.

Starke

LOL you would think that would be the case but it's not so. Did you hear about VMware 3.5 Update 2? When it was first released no VMs could turn on, it was total chaos. Don't just blame Microsoft.

stupidboy wrote: »

It looks like I've got this one. The reason is obvious.

Just think, you have installed Hyper-V, a couple of VMs and its been working OK for a month or so. Then there is a critical security fix that needs to be applied, you as a good admin install it ... but what's this the VMs will not come on-line any more .... NO!

Just think if you had VMware (I know there have been a couple of issues) things would just run.

Now which company needs a VM admin? Hyper-V could be a job for life

Unite my technoborthers and sisters for Hyper-V is the gateway to promised land ... a big fat pay check

stupidboy

Starke wrote: »

LOL you would think that would be the case but it's not so. Did you hear about VMware 3.5 Update 2? When it was first released no VMs could turn on, it was total chaos. Don't just blame Microsoft.

At least there is no convincing required, everyone is happy to tar MS with the "unstable" brush. Therefore, you need someone to look after if for you

HeroPsycho

Honestly, I wouldn't tag HyperV as unstable. I would tag it as "unproven" compared to VMware.

Also, I do find the argument compelling that I wouldn't want to virtualize anything in HyperV that isn't a Microsoft OS. I know they do officially support Suse, but it it would scare the crap out of me nonetheless to virtualize a linux machine on a MS virtualization platform in production. I like Microsoft, but even I get a little suspicious of them perhaps from time to time intentionally crippling competing products to sell their own (preloading app files for IE for faster startup times compared to other browsers, crippling OpenGL in Vista to name a few...), or perhaps their virtualization technology could be unintentionally geared to perform well with MS OS's, and not others.

With that said, I am wondering now that in the end Microsoft might wrestle the crown away from VMware. They've gotten close enough already with the virtualization product to make it into discussions. Once Microsoft trains their guns in on a space, they very often times end up taking it over.

dynamik

Good points Hero. I couldn't get Open Filer or FreeNAS running in Hyper-V. There might be some workarounds, but I didn't feel like screwing with it. I just loaded them up in Virtual Box. Open Filer actually installed, but the NIC wasn't supported (even the legacy one).

blargoe

In 5 years they'll buy VMWare

Starke

I have one more thing to add. Let's not forget that technically Microsoft will only support a VM that is running Windows Server 2008 on ESX 3.5, no support for 2003 or earlier also no support for ESXi. I have never had to call Microsoft support but this may be a requirement for the customer. Here is the link of the supported third party virtual platforms and the software that can run on them.

Windows Server Catalog

I look forward to seeing the picture of you wearing a Hyper-V shirt.

blargoe

Starke wrote: »

I have one more thing to add. Let's not forget that technically Microsoft will only support a VM that is running Windows Server 2008 on ESX 3.5, no support for 2003 or earlier also no support for ESXi. I have never had to call Microsoft support but this may be a requirement for the customer. Here is the link of the supported third party virtual platforms and the software that can run on them.

Windows Server Catalog

I look forward to seeing the picture of you wearing a Hyper-V shirt.

Not how I read it:

What operating systems will Microsoft support on validated hypervisors?
Windows Server 2008, Windows 2000 Server Service Pack 4 and Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 and subsequent service packs. Microsoft will continue to provide technical support for these and any future operating systems that are added to SVVP, as long as Microsoft provides technical support for those operating systems under non-virtualized conditions. For more information on Microsoft's support lifecycle policies please see Please Verify your Location.

Hardware has to be WS2008 logo certified, but can run any supported Microsoft Server OS on any hypervisor that is in the SVVP.