A Response to VMware’s ‘Get the Facts’ page comparing vSphere to Hyper-V & System Center

For the sake of full disclosure, in case you did not know, I am not only a Microsoft MVP, I am also a Virtual Partner Technology Advisor for Microsoft Canada, and work very closely with that company’s Evangelism Team.  I hold most major IT-Pro focused certifications from Microsoft Learning that come close to pertaining to virtualization.  I am also a VMware Guru, am a VMware Certified Professional (4 and 5), and have been teaching a third-party vSphere course for a company called VMTraining since 2009.

Recently a colleague of mine – an IT Manager for the Toronto office of a Fortune 100 company – had a sales call from VMware recently.  His company is a Microsoft shop and as such runs Hyper-V, but he was in the mood to pick an argument, so he said ‘I’ll be glad to switch to VMware… as soon as you can prove to me that it is a better value for my company that Windows Server 2012 and Hyper-V 3.0.’

I would imagine that this poor salesman’s life was a hell of a lot easier five or even two years ago, when VMware was the clear leader in its market, the only player in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant.  In the days when companies paid the high cost for VMware because there simply wasn’t another enterprise-ready solution in the server virtualization space, questions like this one would have been easy to answer.

Today it is not so simple for them, but of course they have an answer prepared.  VMware’s Get the Facts page hopes to clear the air… claiming ‘Not the Microsoft Hyper-Bole’  Catchy, huh?  It lists five reasons with links:

Fact #1: VMware is the proven, undisputed leader. This is absolutely true: VMware is the leader in the virtualization space.  Remember ‘Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.’  IBM nearly disappeared because first they did not see the competition such as Digital as a threat in the mainframe market, and then again by thinking that nobody else could make an Intel x86-based PC that would run Microsoft DOS and applications, and that people would continue to pay a 40% premium for the privilege of those three coveted letters.  If VMware continues to ignore Hyper-V as a threat, their future at the top of the heap is far from guaranteed.

The link makes a number of points:

  • [‘VMware vSphere’s architecture is purpose-built with the industry’s smallest disk footprint; Microsoft Hyper-V R3 will still have a large disk footprint, burdened with general-purpose Windows code that has nothing to do with virtualization.’] This may be true… but who is that disk footprint (still under 10GB) hurting?
  • [‘Analysts estimate that over 80% of all virtual machines in the world run on VMware.’’] Again, who cares? Budweiser is one of the top selling beers in the world, but that doesn’t make it better than Labatt.  Nobody is denying that VMware makes an excellent product.  They just make it expensive.
  • [‘VMware VMotion performs 5 times faster than today’s Microsoft Live Migration.’] So what? The end user doesn’t notice or care that the VM is migrating!
  • [‘VMware HA (High Availability) works even when half or more hosts in a cluster go down; Microsoft "HA" doesn’t.’]  Sure, the more hosts you buy, the fewer hosts your VMs can run on…  The bottom line is that vSphere 5 supports up to 512 VMs running on a host, and when ‘half or more hosts’ in a cluster go down you had better be sure that you aren’t over capacity.  Conversely, Windows Server 2012 supports up to 64 nodes in a failover cluster (as compared to 32 nodes in a vSphere 5 cluster) and 1024 running virtual machines per host (as compared to 512 running VMs in ESXi 5), so not only can you have more running virtual machines, you can have a higher host failure tolerance before a cluster goes down.
  • [‘Hyper-V R3 will still fall short of vSphere 5 in critical areas like virtual security, storage management and business continuity.’]  All of these are questionable claims at best, but there is no question that VMware makes a good product… I just question if the product is worth the price.  I think Rolls Royce makes an incredible car that is absolutely better than my Toyota… but I drive a Toyota because it does everything I need… and is affordable.

Fact #2: VMware delivers greater value and lower TCO.  This may have been true once, but no longer, and certainly not in Hyper-V 3.  Let’s look at their points:

  • [‘VMware offers lower capital and operational costs than Microsoft due to VMware’s higher scalability and greater levels of administrative automation.’]  This is a complete falsehood if comparing apples to apples – ESXi 5.1 and vCenter Server versus Hyper-V 3.0 and System Center 2012.  With Hyper-V 3 you can put double the number of running virtual machines per host, and double the number of  hosts per cluster.  With these numbers I would ask who really offers greater scalability?
  • [‘VMware uniquely solves customers’ business issues leading to greater business value, especially when moving to a private cloud, built on top of a proven foundation.’] I do not question that VMware offers business value, but whether that value holds up when compared to Server 2012 and System Center 2012? I doubt it.

Fact #3: VMware is proven to support business critical apps.  This is absolutely true, and if you read the points in the link you will notice that at the very beginning they sate that over 80% of virtual machines run on VMware… then talk about the rate of virtualization of application servers such as SQL, Exchange, and SharePoint.  It does not say a word to the effect that these can all be virtualized just as well on Hyper-V as on ESX (See my article and Netanel Ben-Shushan’s whitepaper on P2V Migration for Microsoft Exchange Servers).

Again, nobody is denying that VMware is an excellent virtualization platform.  As the link clearly states, ‘…VMware is part of Microsoft’s Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP), which clearly defines and provides support for Microsoft applications on non-Microsoft virtualization platforms.’  Microsoft would not certify VMware in the SVVP if it wasn’t… but that does not mean that it is better or worse than Hyper-V, which is also SVVP certified.

Fact #4: System Center falls short for managing vSphere.  I do not know if System Center actually falls short, but it is true – there are a number of tasks in ESXi that cannot be managed by System Center Virtual Machine Manager.  The current claim is that System Center 2012 now supports all of the functionality of ESXi 3.5, 4.0, and 4.1, as well as vCenter Server 2.5, 4.0, and 4.1.  That is still short of what I am expecting of them – and I hope that in Service Pack 1 they will extend support and functionality to include ESXi 5.  And yes, it is true that in order for System Center to manage ESX/ESXi it still requires vCenter Server in place.

With all of that being said, the heterogeneous hypervisor scenario in which VMM would be managing ESX/ESXi is part of a greater migration plan, where a company has decided to migrate off VMware and onto Microsoft virtualization.  This process would be a lot more painful if VMM could not do both, and a rip-and-replace was required.  Being able to manage VMware from VMM allows companies the luxury of migrating at a leisurely pace… a lot less painful than the alternative, while also answering the argument of ‘Yes, VMware is more expensive, but we’ve already invested and don’t want to spend the money to migrate onto Hyper-V.’

It is also worth mentioning that while System Center does not do absolutely everything that you might occasionally need to do in ESX/ESXi, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the alternative, since vCenter Server will not even recognize the existence of Hyper-V, let alone manage it.  The only exception to this is that VMware does provide a utility to perform V2V migrations of Hyper-V virtual machines to ESX/ESXi… in case a company decides that the free product that does 99% of what the really expensive alternative does, and wants to go the other way.

Fact #5: VMware delivers application-aware solutions.  Again, Nobody is denying the capabilities of VMware… Unfortunately they continue to spread misleading information about Hyper-V and the Private Cloud.  Their points:

  • [‘VMware delivers and enables solutions that provide extensive application insight, to enable IT to deliver on business-level SLAs.’]  This is true.  So does System Center 2012 (and previous versions, for that matter)
  • [‘Supporting both Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications, VMware vFabric Hyperic provides out-of-the-box support for more than 75 different application technologies, with a breadth of application-specific metrics.’] Again, no question.  On the flip side, System Center 2012 provides Management Packs (MPs) for every Microsoft product available for the enterprise.  For non-Microsoft products the majority of them have third-party MPs available, and if the application that you are interested in does not, no problem!  You can create one (or more likely hire a consultant to do that… there are companies that do it for a living).
  • [‘VMware vCenter Operations has access to any application data that Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM) has access to by leveraging adapters to collect performance, topology, and events data.’]  It is nice to see the page conceding that System Center Operations Manager is the gold standard that they should be comparing themselves to.
  • [‘VMware vSphere provides APIs that enable VMware technology partners to deliver application-aware solutions, such as Symantec’s ApplicationHA, which provides high availability for business-critical applications like Microsoft Exchange and SQL, Oracle, SAP, and WebLogic’] So does Microsoft!

Conclusion:

I asked my colleague to read the points, and if he was convinced.  He said he was.  I then had him read this article, and asked if he was still convinced.  He was not.  He told me that his was a Microsoft shop, and would remain so until someone proved to him that another solution was better.  Proof does not mean marketing fud, it means real numbers, side by side, from independent consultants.  Unfortunately this is still not possible, due to VMware’s end-user license agreement (EULA) which strictly forbids anyone from publishing comparative benchmarks.

I have been saying for two years that if I was VMware, and I was so convinced that ESXi and vCenter Server were so much better than Hyper-V, I would be asking people to compare them side by side and then make the decision.  I would be asking technology bloggers and journalists to publish comparisons, and would even be enabling them to do so… rather than forbidding it under penalty of legal action.

The feud between Microsoft and VMware will continue to heat up, and each technology giant will continue to make improvements to its respective product offerings.  However it is time that VMware starts respecting Hyper-V and the System Center 2012 offerings, and if they do not they are destined to find themselves in a very precarious state somewhere in the next couple of years.  Companies simply do not want to pay out huge sums of money annually if they don’t have to.  ESXi is free… until you want to do anything with it, at which point you need the vCenter Server.  System Center 2012 is certainly not free, but most companies have System Center and will be upgrading to the newer platform in the near future.  The same holds true with Windows Server 2012, although the reality is that Hyper-V 2008 R2 SP1 still holds up pretty nicely.

Is Microsoft better than VMware? No, at least not when it comes to server virtualization.  Is Microsoft close enough to VMware that the huge price difference is not worth the money? Yes.  Does VMware offer features that Microsoft does not? Yes.  Does Microsoft offer features that VMware does not?  Yes.  Do both solutions in their latest versions (Server 2012 RC is currently being tested by companies around the world, as is vSphere 5.1) offer customer the same base features that the vast majority of companies want and need?  Yes.

Should you take my word for it?  No.  Nor should you take VMware’s word for it.  Install both in a test environment and run your own comparative tests, and then decide!

About these ads

30 thoughts on “A Response to VMware’s ‘Get the Facts’ page comparing vSphere to Hyper-V & System Center

  1. Andre

    Mitch, I’d like to comment on your remarks. For full disclosure, I’m a ex VMware field engineer, very used to dealing with customers of all sizes till recently. To the remarks now:

    First of all, we should start by comparing what’s in the market TODAY with what’s in the market today: I mean vSphere 5 versus Hyper-V 2, or vSphere 5.1 with Hyper-V 3. Since vSphere 5.1 news are not in the street yet, we should go with the first. Comparing a future MSFT release with what VMware customers are running for over 1 year now is simply not fair, to me at least.

    Fact #1
    – the Hyper-V over 10 GB footprint is important not because of how much disk it takes, but because more code means more patches, which mean more management and downtime. It also means a larger attack surface, equals to less secure. Compared to the 0.1 GB of ESXi, it’s a big, big difference.

    – users don’t care about vMotions – that’s correct. But I’ve worked with customers comparing Hyper-V 2 to vSphere, and the HV2 live migration not only much longer to complete, it also had a ‘stun time’ (time when the VM looks frozen while migrating) of several seconds, enough to loose SQL Server transactions and connections, in that case. That’s a big difference, important enough for that customer to go with vSphere by itself.

    – you keep mentioning that VMware costs more, but that does not hold true in many scenarios. The calculator in VMware’s website shows how we see this math, while you also have a calculator in yours. I think you’re right on this one: customers will have to do their own math.

    – I don’t think you understand what VMware says about VMware HA versus Hyper-V features for it. First of all, the over 500 VMs discussion is a theoretical discussion, as 99.99% of customers do not run 100 VMs per host. And if they do, VMware vMotion speed and capabilities for many concurrent vMotions shines when compared to much slower Hyper-V, as any virtual data center admin knows (have you ever tried to put a host with 30 serious production VMs in maintenance mode? Have a seat or come back tomorrow, Hyper-V admin…). That’s production experience that VMware does have, and Microsoft should not ignore it. Back to the HA point, I have a customer with 10 hosts in a cluster, and 6 hosts were lost due to a power failure. Since they use vSphere, all VMs were accommodated in the remaining hosts according to vSphere HA admission control settings (something Hyper-V still lacks). If it was a Hyper-V cluster, they would not recover 100% of the VMs, as VMware points out in their web page. That’s important, too, for obvious reasons.

    – You said Hyper-V does 99% of what vSphere does. That does not hold true either. Among many features that VMware mentions in their page about it, I’d mention Storage DRS and Metro-vMotion, two features that I know to make a lot of difference for live production vSphere customers that Hyper-V also lacks. Try to manage a virtual environment with dozens of LUNs full of VMs manually, versus the easy life with Storage DRS.

    Fact #2
    – To the scalability argument, I’d suggest you compare today’s versions numbers: vSphere 5 versus Hyper-V 2, not future products yet to be delivered. To the $$$ arguments, back to what we said before: customers need to do their own math. We both are biased on this.

    Fact #3
    – VMware has much more support for ISVs for their virtualization and much more experience virtualizing critical apps. That’s what they are talking about. Comparatively, Hyper-V is immature.

    Fact #4
    – VMware is right to mention that you would not manage your real life vSphere environment using SC. I’d like to mention Gartner’s Chris Wolf article on multiple hypervisors on this topic.

    Fact #5
    – What you are saying is that Hyper-V can be as good as vSphere on this. And I don’t see VMware saying SCOM is the gold standard in their text, they just do a fair mention.

    I also correct the statement in which you say VMware does not allow the publication of benchmarks. VMware had bad experiences with all sort of “magic benchmarks” with obscure methods trying to pose vSphere as inferior to others, so they decided to include a “you can, but you have to put us in the mix, too” in their license agreement. It seems fair to me, in a world where marketing money can hammer lies till they become true.

    It’s a lot to read, but I really felt your remarks were missing many important points for day-to-day operations of virtualized data centers.

    Reply
    1. ezfreeze

      Thanks for the clarification Andre…

      I am glad I read your response… Mitch mentions an apples to apples comparison and the article is an apples to orange comparison when you compare a future product to an existing one…

      It didn’t take long to realize the writer of the article is a DIEHARD M$ guy…

      Reply
      1. Mitch Garvis Post author

        Interesting… I do not consider myself a diehard anything. In fact I am teaching a VMware class in a couple of weeks, and I work with it all the time. Microsoft has announced that RTM for Server 2012 is the first week of August, but it has been available in pre-release to IT Pros to test for eight months. VMware has vSphere 5.1 in private beta, and if history is any indicator they will launch it at VMworld. I have made the offer to VMware to compare the two, and am waiting for a response.

        I have also been very upfront about who I am, and have offered VMware the opportunity to respond to my article. André did a great job of that. This blog is not a marketing outlet for Microsoft… if it was I would not have published (word for word) André’s reply, nor would I have offered him the opportunity to polish it into an article that I would publish in this space.

        IT should not be about religion, it should be about the best tool for the job. Three years ago there wasn’t much of a debate – vSphere ruled the roost. With 2008R2 Microsoft made it a bit of a contest, relying on price point and simplicity to win market share (they are at 27%, making Hyper-V the fastest growing hypervisor in history). With Hyper-V 3 in Windows Server 2012 Microsoft is really changing the game, and the contest is going to be a much tighter race, obviously evoking a lot of emotions and marketing from both sides. That marketing would be empty without substance, which BOTH companies have.

      2. ezfreeze

        You may not be a die-hard M$ guy, but you really didn’t point out ANY flaws in hyper-V… The article was slanted one way and that was toward hyper-V…

        It was pointed out that you are comparing a future M$ product to a vmware product that has been out there for a while and didn’t point that out in the beginning of your article…

        When I first read it, it appeared you were comparing two available products…

        So excuse me if I as a reader think that you appear to have a M$ bias…

        I don’t have extensive use in hyper-V, but have plenty of experience in other M$ products like DPM 2010 and others… I can honestly tell you DPM 2010 is a piece of garbage…

        The amount of use I do have with hyper-V has been somewhat pleasant, but I would be hard pressed to move the multiple hundreds of virtuals we have on vmware to hyper-V if they have been running great on VMware…

        A proven platform is a proven platform…

      3. Mitch Garvis Post author

        I understand your points, and I probably should have mentioned that Hyper-V 3 will be out later this year (at the time of publication I did not have a date).

        The article, being a response to a VMware site, is not meant to point out flaws in Hyper-V, rather to answer the points made by VMware. If you reread the article you will see that I don’t have a bad word to say about their technology… I love their technology.

        I do point out at the beginning that I do have a Microsoft bias… I work for them on a regular basis (well, for Microsoft Canada mostly). My job is not to belittle any other technology, rather to show the benefits of Hyper-V and the System Center stack based on Windows Server.

        No comment about DPM 2010… It was what it was, now DPM is now part of System Center 2012, and there are HUGE improvements… as in they rewrote from the ground up and came out with something great.

        I am not telling you or anyone to switch from vSphere (absolutely a proven platform) to Hyper-V… I think my article asks you to take another look at Hyper-V and to give it a fair shake. If your previous experience with Hyper-V has been pleasant, then you are going to love Hyper-V 3.0, and when you compare costs you and your customers will be smiling!

      4. ezfreeze

        Thanks for the honest response… I do agree that if VMWare doesn’t take hyper-V seriously, they may be over run… No doubt about that…

        The sad thing is and you kind of pointed it out in a previous comment… Marketing is about selling the CxO… Once the CxO is sold, a change is made… The sad part of that is that it is about marketing… Not about who has the better product… It really isn’t about product at all… It is all about the show… Put on a great show for the CIO and your in… And M$ can put on a show… No doubt…

        A friend of mine was in an environment where they had linux servers running oracle databases… And M$ got to demo to the CIO and the CIO made a change… They migrated to windows servers running SQL databases and they are having all kind of problems… And the amount of money they are spending on M$ support and down time have increased costs then saved money… They are a midsized business and they have had 2 almost full time M$ guys onsite for almost 3 years to help resolve the issues they are having…

        I will be the first to say it, my friends scenario isn’t always the case, but I am hearing more and more similar ones…

    2. arcana112

      What about share-nothing Live Migration?

      Will Vmware *finally* implement this very very *VERY* critical feature?

      It is unbelievable that I would need downtime to migrate a VM to another Cluster on Vmware…. Hyper-V has well and truly leap-frogged you on that very critical feature….

      Also calling Hyper-V “immature” is simply your biased opinion: Gartner has long placed Hyper-V and Microsoft on the “Leaders” category regarding virtualization. And they did that for Hyper-V V2 (not V3). Trust me, Gartner to do NOT label someone as a leader if their product is “immature”…..

      Also no matter how much you spin it the fact remains that Vmware does NOT allow *any* benchmarks to be published if they do not approve their results…. Compare that to MSFT policy that freely allows all tests and let the customer’s decide freely….

      Be afraid. Be VERY afraid….

      Reply
      1. Mitch Garvis Post author

        To be fair I am told that in vSphere 5.1 they will allow a Shared Nothing type migration. Unfortunately VMware’s promise to let me see the bits was not kept, so it is only their word for now.

  2. Pingback: The Demise of Windows SBS « The World According to Mitch

  3. Pingback: IT Pros ROCK!

  4. Rob Bergin (@rbergin)

    So I read this (sort of) but I plan to read it later.

    My biggest concern – is the vMotion vs. Live Migration.

    Can we determine which is a better functioning product?

    I run very large virtualization – hundreds of VMs, dozens of hosts – and putting a host in maintenance mode with 40-150 VMs on it requires vMotion/Live Migration.

    And I need it to be 100% non-disruptive.

    I am sensing that v2 of LiveMigration wasn’t all that and a bag of chips – but is v3 of LiveMigration better?

    Reply
    1. Mitch Garvis Post author

      While I am not sure what your concerns were with Live Migration in Hyper-V 2008 R2, I can tell you that there are significant improvements in 2012… it is faster, and the functionality is vastly improved.

      Reply
  5. Pingback: Harold Wong's Blog with Geekie Thoughts and Insights

  6. Richard

    Also noteworthy, Microsoft’s Hyper-V Server 2012 will be made available for free, with ALL features included such as replication, live migration, SMB 3.0 support, etc.

    Reply
  7. Richard

    Also noteworthy, Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 will be made available for free, with all new and cool features like replication and live migration included.

    Reply
      1. Mitch Garvis Post author

        It is true that SCVMM is not free, and for the full functionality of vSphere you would have to invest in System Center, no question. However a) Most enterprises have System Center in place to manage and monitor their server environment so there is no extra cost, and b) If you don’t need the full functionality of System Center you can still create a Failover Cluster for Live Migration and failover, and manage it all using FCM and Hyper-V Manager.

      2. David

        I am going to risk a great deal here by offering a response that really will sound like a marketing pitch, but I ask that the readers bear with me.

        To the question of centralized management I have to respond with “it depends”. The reason why is because in Windows Server 2012 the built in Server Manager has had significant improvements built into it that allow it to become a central management tool for multiple servers in an environment. What this means is that any built in Hyper-V 3.0 functionality can be centrally managed across multiple Windows Servers with this tool including Storage Live Migration and Cluster Aware Updates, among other things.

        When we need to look at SC VMM 2012 is when the built in features of Server Manager do not provide the central management functions we need.

      3. Richard

        Well, my first thought is PowerShell, and for very basic management the Server Manager. Depends on which level you would like to manage. And with System Center of course you can manage not only your virtual environment, but your whole IT environment. Should be worth the ivestment. And remember, vCenter server Standard is not free also.

  8. nob@dotquest.com

    “This may be true… but who is that disk footprint (still under 10GB) hurting?”
    I would expect this kind of argument from someone who doesn’t know anything about IT security :|

    Overall this article feels like a marketing response biased towards Microsoft (Andre summed it up nicely) targeting CEO, instead of a true comparative between two hypervisors targeting IT professionals.

    I’m pretty disappointed (and i had the pleasure and the pain to work with both Hyper-V R2 and ESXi for a few years).

    Reply
    1. Mitch Garvis Post author

      Please see my reply to ezfreeze. This article is a response to a marketing article, so there is going to be a marketing feel to it. However to claim that I don’t know anything about IT security is like saying that because I wear a watch you don’t like you assume I can’t tell time. Look me up.

      With all of that being said, you can win the hearts of IT professionals with technological coolness, but in business you have to be able to speak to CxOs… I won’t apologize for that. If you don’t consider it a balanced comparison then I invite you to write one from the other side.

      Reply
      1. nob@dotquest.com

        Take no offense Mitch – the point about disk footprint let me indeed dumbfounded.
        I did and would not dare to claim you don’t know anything about IT security :)

        When i’m dealing with customers, i try to sell them what i think is the best solution for their needs, not what is MS-based (or VMWare-based) at all costs.
        And yes you do have to convince CxO…because they are the ones who held the credit card, not IT people. And as i start to work for big companies i realize what the CEO’s choice is more about politics than IT needs.

        But i found some of your arguments very dangerous, as they could easily be turned against you by replacing “VMWare” with “Microsoft”.

        That said i’m pretty happy Microsoft considers virtualization seriously – having a true competition between vendors will help customers obtain better and cheaper products (yes VMWare, i’m looking at you).

        Thanks for your reply !

  9. Pingback: Microsoft information flood (including Server 2012) « blog.bjornhouben.com

  10. Hugh Wanger

    In response to Andre.
    I am a VMWare user. Just reading articles today on Hyper V to see if it is worthy of another eval, and see if there is value in migrating over to Hyper V.
    (200 VMs on 30 hosts) (3 x c7000 HP blade centres, NetApp storage)
    Typical midsize stuff.

    Andre says:

    Fact #1
    >The Hyper-V over 10 GB footprint is important
    Not for us its not. Seriously, your startup disks care about this why?
    (And the guy who commented about security: nob@dotquest.com, thats a nonsense argument)

    Fact #2
    > (time when the VM looks frozen while migrating) of several seconds, enough to loose SQL Server transactions
    Yer, I’d like to test that to see if that “cutover” lag is real.

    Fact #3
    – you keep mentioning that VMware costs more, but that does not hold true in many scenarios.

    It _is_ more expensive, and VMWare prices are only going one way – up.
    But most of us have already sunk the VMWare money, and are on matintenance fees.

    Fact #4
    >your words were too long.
    Basically, I don’t buy MS arguments either on VM to Host density.
    Most people who can afford a VMWare or HyperV setup with shared disk will also get enough headroom per host. Only tiny shops “might” care. Most won’t

    Fact #3
    – VMware has much more support for ISVs for their virtualization and much more experience virtualizing critical apps. That’s what they are talking about. Comparatively, Hyper-V is immature.

    Rubbish. Who woudn’t trust Microsoft, with Windows + their own Hypervisor to run their mission critical app? Honestly, thats a ludacrous thing to say.

    Fact #4
    – VMware is right to mention that you would not manage your real life vSphere environment using SC. I’d like to mention Gartner’s Chris Wolf article on multiple hypervisors on this topic.

    I don’t think you’d want to do that permanently, but for co-existance during a migration it sounds workable.

    Fact #5
    >Again you mixed your words and points.
    Hyper V has a higher density, but I don’t think anyone cares that much.
    VMware just don’t want to lose a brochure battle at sale time.

    I actually agree with the author. Its the 80/20 rule.
    I don’t know anyone in my industry who uses storage vmotion.
    (We use Snapmirror from NetApp to replicate, and will just restart VMs)
    Hyper V would work for us. But I like most, we don’t have a reason to move.
    If we had the same choice now, as we had last time, we’d probably go Hyper V this time.
    Too late :)

    Reply
  11. Pingback: Windows Fever… Catch It! « The World According to Mitch

  12. Pingback: John Weston Stories, Information, and random thoughts.

  13. Pingback: Is it true? The Memory Tax is gone! « The World According to Mitch

  14. Pingback: It’s Coming… Can we now compare Hyper-V with vSphere as both new products prepare for launch? « The World According to Mitch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s