CIO at a energy/utilities company with 51-200 employees
Vendor
2014-08-09T12:11:42Z
Aug 9, 2014
To Whom,
The question is too broad. When looking at virtualization, it is necessary to understand the components and the vendor offerings. There are three main virtualization platforms: Citrix Xenserver, VMware ESX?? And Hyper-V. Then there are desktop virtualization solutions from all three: Xendesktop, VMware View and Hyper-V VDI.
If we are discussing bare metal hypervisors, then the issues resolve around cost, performance, support and ease of use. VMware is the 800 pound gorilla in price here. Xenserver has gone open source so it only incurs costs if you require support or implementation assistance. Hyper-V is similar (the process is different but …). Another differentiating factor, particularly between Xenserver and VMware is the level of integration of the various parts of the product. Citrix has done an excellent job of developing a common dashboard for all the virtualization components, even where it has acquired another company’s product. VMware has a more cobbled together look which can lead to more complexity in running the various parts. Hyper-V is a newcomer compared to the other two and is not as mature as either one. It shows great promise and is likely to develop into a powerhouse able to hold its own against both Citrix and VMware.
Multiple sites create another set of issues and, in my experience, Citrix’s Cloud Platform implementation provides the best active-active implementation removing any latency in a failover situation. This is critical for environments which require High Availability for their data and applications.
If the plan is to use the hypervisor in a single small environment, either Xenserver or Hyper-V will likely give a gratifying result with the least cost of ownership. VMware, because of its significant installed base will be easier to find experienced talent to work on it. Depending on how much time and energy can be invested in the implementation and operation of the virtualized environment, certain characteristics of each candidate must be evaluated to assure the best possible outcome.
Finally, for this discussion, if the goal is VDI, I believe there is only one well executed and viable product and that is XenDesktop. The number of moving pieces in a VDI implementation precludes a dissertation on the pros and cons of each company’s offerings in this short conversation.
I hope this was helpful.
By the way, ask any three knowledgeable people the same question and I doubt you would get agreement from even two of them so, don’t just take my word on it. Consult as many competent people as you can and weigh their arguments to assure yourself you have the right information for your particular situation, prejudices, outcomes and willingness to delve into the product(s). Remember, when all is said and done, you will be the one responsible for the outcome.
Product Consultant (Presales) at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2014-08-09T11:59:29Z
Aug 9, 2014
How does Hyper-V compare to alternative Virtualization solutions?
As usual Microsoft had always trying to copy other's features and rename it and say we invented, Hyper-V and Virtual switch management is no exception.
In real world when you are talking running production servers in virtual environment how you can afford to restart host for every patch Tuesday or so.
In terms of product stability VMware ESXi is way ahead an the same applies to virtual switch management.
If you talk numbers from pocket then go for VMware vSphere Kits (Essenstial Kits) they are much cheaper.
If you want to run OS (*nix) other then Windows don't even think about Hyper-V.
I had done and seen enterprises running SAP, Oracle on VMware with peace of mind and seen running on Hyper-V with pain.
VMware gives you more features no matter you are SMB or medium to small organization compare to Hyper-V with easy to implement and operate.
If you ask talk about the virtual switch management i will never advise any one to go for it for production at this moment as it is introduced in R2.
If you compare to VMware Virtual switch management anyone with basic network knowledge can manage it. if you need advanced you can go with enterprise plus edition for distributed switch which will require more network knowledge with advanced LAG, etc. You also have option to go for CISCO or IBM virtual appliances for more familiar configuration.
when you ask "how is it.." I'm assuming you want to know if it is easy or difficult.
We find that it is easy to use and we leverage it to separate some of our servers onto different VLANs all within the same physical server. Reply if you want more detail and with what kind of detail you're looking to find.
KVM is better. But let's just look at the software instead of judging.
Hyper-V was a free solution from Microsoft to virtualize Server or Client OS as it is a feature on Windows Server since 2008 and came in Windows 8 as well. Free because they had a special SKU dedicated for virtualization called Hyper-V-Server. It had a limited footprint through a core installation (no GUI) to minimize updates it would need.
But that was until the Windows Server 2019 release. With the new release line named "2022", they dropped that SKU altogether. Microsoft now proclaims you should use their Azure-Stack-HCI solution which is a paid offering with a subscription. That in itself is no bad thing as it would work pretty well (did not try myself but read about it). Alas, you will have to pay for that.
Another downside of Hyper-V is the management capabilities and requirements: You have to use Windows to manage that (which you probably already use anyway) but you have to use at minimum the same OS version your Hyper-V is running on. So if you have Hyper-V Server 2016 you have to use Windows 10 as a minimum (expect to have the same feature built as the server 1607).
On the other hand, there is KVM free on most (if not all) Linuxes. There are even free offerings like Proxmox VE with a full package to use it as an appliance, manage through a browser, and such. Way more straightforward than Hyper-V. Citrix Xen Server is also a great solution to get you started with virtualization.
Commercial solutions are also out there to deliver to more production-inclined needs. One is Nutanix AHV which uses KVM at its core. See my article about that for more information.Personally, I used KVM in private projects and some test scenarios at work. We use AHV at work and it is perfectly running there.
I also have a Hyper-V running with a few VMs for a small shop which works great. You have to settle with some limitations but I will switch that away from Hyper-V because of that mess they made with 2022 (I don't want to pay for a thing I have used for free after 10 years. besides said shop is a non-profit). I'm just waiting for the next hardware refresh.
So yes, I think KVM is better and not only because it is still free.
One of the best things about Proxmox VE is that it is open-source and very inexpensive. You get all of the same features as with the more well-known products. Proxmox VE is very easy to deploy - it can run on anything. It is extremely scalable, stable, and very user-friendly. Proxmox VE allows users to easily create virtual machines. It is based on Debian Linux, using KVM.
Proxmox is a young solution and there are still some bugs to work out. When you need technical support, there is a cost, and this can add up quickly. There are some things in Proxmox VE that need a command-line interface. We think it would be better if it were more a web-based interface.
The initial setup with the Hyper V is very simple. It is a Microsoft product so it works seamlessly with all Microsoft products, and does very well with other solutions as well. The Hyper V is a great end-to-end solution that has an amazing fail-over feature, which helps minimize downtime and maintain productivity.
Hyper V can have some stability issues; your stack can become bloated easily. The scalability of this solution really depends on the licensing you purchase. If you are looking to scale up or down you will need to purchase the data center license, which can get expensive.
Conclusion:
If you are looking for a Hypervisor strictly from a cost of ownership point of view, Proxmox VE is the solution to choose. It has many of the same features as other products at a very competitive price.
We chose Hyper V, as we are deeply committed to the Microsoft ecosystem and we were also looking for some management solutions that Proxmox does not offer. We also found the fail-over feature very important to many of our clients’ needs.
Every Virtualization Administrator deals with frustrations daily, and having a management platform to help with daily tasks will ease the burden. But how do you know which one is right for you? How would you go about choosing the right platform that will help you in your daily tasks?
Software Criteria
When choosing a management tool, there are many things to consider based on your virtual e...
Hi.
First of all making comparisons are to wide to make if you do not have a RFI, according to solve business issues instead not only technical.
Because depends on how many applications your data center is running?; Is your main app available as SaaS?; Your Data center is running out of space?.
So please make this clear before you engage to a virtualization initiative.
I would advice to start slow making tests so that you gain experience and Hyper-v is good tool to start with.
To Whom,
The question is too broad. When looking at virtualization, it is necessary to understand the components and the vendor offerings. There are three main virtualization platforms: Citrix Xenserver, VMware ESX?? And Hyper-V. Then there are desktop virtualization solutions from all three: Xendesktop, VMware View and Hyper-V VDI.
If we are discussing bare metal hypervisors, then the issues resolve around cost, performance, support and ease of use. VMware is the 800 pound gorilla in price here. Xenserver has gone open source so it only incurs costs if you require support or implementation assistance. Hyper-V is similar (the process is different but …). Another differentiating factor, particularly between Xenserver and VMware is the level of integration of the various parts of the product. Citrix has done an excellent job of developing a common dashboard for all the virtualization components, even where it has acquired another company’s product. VMware has a more cobbled together look which can lead to more complexity in running the various parts. Hyper-V is a newcomer compared to the other two and is not as mature as either one. It shows great promise and is likely to develop into a powerhouse able to hold its own against both Citrix and VMware.
Multiple sites create another set of issues and, in my experience, Citrix’s Cloud Platform implementation provides the best active-active implementation removing any latency in a failover situation. This is critical for environments which require High Availability for their data and applications.
If the plan is to use the hypervisor in a single small environment, either Xenserver or Hyper-V will likely give a gratifying result with the least cost of ownership. VMware, because of its significant installed base will be easier to find experienced talent to work on it. Depending on how much time and energy can be invested in the implementation and operation of the virtualized environment, certain characteristics of each candidate must be evaluated to assure the best possible outcome.
Finally, for this discussion, if the goal is VDI, I believe there is only one well executed and viable product and that is XenDesktop. The number of moving pieces in a VDI implementation precludes a dissertation on the pros and cons of each company’s offerings in this short conversation.
I hope this was helpful.
By the way, ask any three knowledgeable people the same question and I doubt you would get agreement from even two of them so, don’t just take my word on it. Consult as many competent people as you can and weigh their arguments to assure yourself you have the right information for your particular situation, prejudices, outcomes and willingness to delve into the product(s). Remember, when all is said and done, you will be the one responsible for the outcome.
How does Hyper-V compare to alternative Virtualization solutions?
As usual Microsoft had always trying to copy other's features and rename it and say we invented, Hyper-V and Virtual switch management is no exception.
In real world when you are talking running production servers in virtual environment how you can afford to restart host for every patch Tuesday or so.
In terms of product stability VMware ESXi is way ahead an the same applies to virtual switch management.
If you talk numbers from pocket then go for VMware vSphere Kits (Essenstial Kits) they are much cheaper.
If you want to run OS (*nix) other then Windows don't even think about Hyper-V.
I had done and seen enterprises running SAP, Oracle on VMware with peace of mind and seen running on Hyper-V with pain.
VMware gives you more features no matter you are SMB or medium to small organization compare to Hyper-V with easy to implement and operate.
If you ask talk about the virtual switch management i will never advise any one to go for it for production at this moment as it is introduced in R2.
If you compare to VMware Virtual switch management anyone with basic network knowledge can manage it. if you need advanced you can go with enterprise plus edition for distributed switch which will require more network knowledge with advanced LAG, etc. You also have option to go for CISCO or IBM virtual appliances for more familiar configuration.
Regards
F.P
when you ask "how is it.." I'm assuming you want to know if it is easy or difficult.
We find that it is easy to use and we leverage it to separate some of our servers onto different VLANs all within the same physical server. Reply if you want more detail and with what kind of detail you're looking to find.