Moving from VMware to Hyper-V

[DrCheese]

Hi guys,

 

We currently run a Vmware enviroment at our school. We have 3 hosts connected to 1 san & it runs 80% of our servers.

 

When we implmented it way back in 2009, Hyper-V was a complete waste of time & couldn't do features like live migration. Since then it's come on leaps and bounds.

 

I'm keen to save the money we spend yearly on Vmware, just wondering if anyone has made the jump & if there's any real gotcha's/disadvantages to this?

 

Thanks

[bart21]

First disadvantage it's not VMware.

 

Sorry it is still the best on my opinion.

 

Thanks

 

Nick (Vcp, vcap)

Edited November 18, 2014 by bart21

[3s-gtech]

We haven't jumped so much, we just use both now. Using various tools like Disk2VHD, we can switch VMs from one type of host to the other when needed. My older, non Datacentre licensed VMs (and Linux VMs) go onto ESXi, anything on Server 2012 R2 goes onto Hyper-V. They're both great, but as I use ESXi free I haven't had the ongoing costs.

 

Gotchas - none really. Hyper-V is super easy to use and learn, at least at the level we have it (DAS, non clustered, simple setup).

[Norphy]

We've gone from a Vcenter farm to SCVMM managed Hyper-V. Hyper-V is a very good hypervisor but frankly, Vcenter is much better at managing a farm. SCVMM is "good enough" and significantly cheaper, this is why we're using it now.

[DrCheese]

Well that's the main thing for me - Cost. It's costing us around £15k a year for VMware that I'd rather put elsewhere & as our setup is so simple I'm hoping Hyper-V could cope with it.

[localzuk]

We've gone from a Vcenter farm to SCVMM managed Hyper-V. Hyper-V is a very good hypervisor but frankly, Vcenter is much better at managing a farm. SCVMM is "good enough" and significantly cheaper, this is why we're using it now.

 

For server virtualisation, you don't even need SCVMM. Using Failover Cluster Manager does everything I want it to do here.

 

We're been running Hyper-V on 2012 Server for about 16 months now, and its been pretty solid. Live migration, snapshots, dynamic memory, all simple to do.

 

Paying £15k for VMWare in a school is crazy IMO.

[Stuclark]

It's horses for courses really.

 

Yeah, Hyper-V does work, but it's not amazing at complex management tasks.

VMWare is still the most full-featured, enterprise level hypervisor. If you can afford it there's simply no question that you should be using it!

If you want something that's cheap (free) look at Citrix's XenServer - it fits between Hyper-V and VMWare and is pretty good these days (although obviously not as rich as VMWare)

Edited November 20, 2014 by Stuclark

[Gardinho]

If you can afford it there's simply no question that you should be using it!

 

Hit the nail on the head for me.

 

£15k per year seems a lot. How many hosts/cpus do you have? We have 4 hosts with VCenter and it's nowhere near that.

[localzuk]

I ran Xen Server until we switched to Hyper-V, and feature-wise it didn't compare even slightly. I would rate it below the features of Hyper-V!

[gshaw]

3 hosts should no way be £15k unless you've got some top-end Enterprise Plus licensing for it? Should be able to get an Essentials Plus bundle for about 1/3 of that from what I remember.

[caffrey]

I tried both back in the summer, both did the same job I needed so I went for the cheaper option of hyper-v, couldn't be happier - it just works

[Chuckster]

Are you guys using Hyper-V Core or the full fat 2012 R2 version with its GUI?

[localzuk]

I use the full fat version, as it makes admin easier should I get hit by a bus - whoever takes over doesn't need to know about Core.

[caffrey]

Full fat here too, although windows 8.1 has hyper-v manager built in now so I guess full fat isn't really needed.

[Chuckster]

If it's full fat then doesn't that mean Hyper-V has become a Type-2 Hypervisor - which is equivalent of VMware Server, Oracle VirtualBox et al?

 

Type 1 would be ESXi, XenServer etc.

[tmcd35]

No, Hyper-V is a Type-1 hypervisor, it does not run on top of the host OS, more beside the host OS. The host install of windows runs in a special protected layer. I remember something about CPU's and processing 'rings' but alas without googling/wikipedia, that's as far as I get.

[zag]

Hi guys,

 

We currently run a Vmware enviroment at our school. We have 3 hosts connected to 1 san & it runs 80% of our servers.

 

When we implmented it way back in 2009, Hyper-V was a complete waste of time & couldn't do features like live migration. Since then it's come on leaps and bounds.

 

I'm keen to save the money we spend yearly on Vmware, just wondering if anyone has made the jump & if there's any real gotcha's/disadvantages to this?

 

Thanks

 

I've been running Hyper-V since 2010 and cant say I've ever needed live migrations or dynamic memory. They are nice have but was no deal breaker at the time.

 

Its got all those features now and is incredibly easy to use so its a good idea to move if its cheaper for you.

 

Basically Hyper-V rocks

[detjo]

First disadvantage it's not VMware.

Hardly a convincing argument!

 

I'm curious. We use Hyper-V (full fat 2012R2) and given that it's rock solid and offers all I need, what does VMWare offer that Hyper-V doesn't, that is 'must have' ?

[DrCheese]

ok, tell a lie. Our VMWare licensing is around £4/5k a year. I completely misread the budget spreadsheet left by the old network manager!

[tmcd35]

I'm curious. We use Hyper-V (full fat 2012R2) and given that it's rock solid and offers all I need, what does VMWare offer that Hyper-V doesn't, that is 'must have' ?

 

From memory (I was VCP3 certified, so some time ago). The way it handles LUNs is a lot better than anything I've seen in Windows. The GUI is a lot nicer, easier to use, I think more powerful (vCenter). Failover clustering and live migration are all easier to set up. The product is just pure magic with a price tag. Unfortunately - it has a price tag.

[SHimmer45]

hyper-v installed as a role with the GUI is still a type 1 hypervisor. we are only running one hyper-v host and one VMWARE virtual Server (which im hoping to change over to hyper-v as Server is limited in the number of server cores it exposes to the guests? i didnt set it up however so meh)

 

the VMWARE web admin is nice however

[nickbro]

See Hyper-V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

 

 

Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 has the same capabilities as the standard Hyper-V role in Windows server 2012 R2 and supports 1024 active VMs

[DrCheese]

Forgot to say thanks for this guys

 

Considering I've been hit by this bug for months on Vmware

 

VMware KB: ESXi 6.0 network connectivity is lost with NETDEV WATCHDOG timeouts in the vmkernel.log

 

I'm SERIOUSLY considering moving away now. For months I was getting random host lockups that would cause all the VMs on that machine to be restarted on another host, causing blips during the school day. To restore the host would require restarting via idrac

If this issue occurred overnight or was left unchecked it would cause issues with our SAN, eventually freezing up all other hosts & requiring a complete host restart to bring the network back up. This has naturally caused me to tear my hair out, as VMware didn't say if it was a bug or not for months & blamed every other part of our setup.

 

On one occasion it caused a corruption in our exchange database, forcing me to return to backups & downtime.

 

This was AFTER I waited a few months when ESXI 6 came out before updating. I'm not happy at all.

 

Plus I had to reinstall the entire Vcentre server recently as the upgrade to U1 totally broke it. I'm sure I could have fixed it eventually but it was quicker to do this.

 

I'm not impressed with Vmware anymore at all.

[woodham]

hyper -v all the way

live failover

real time migration

replication

whats not to like

[Wubbalubbadub]

hyper -v all the way

live failover

real time migration

replication

whats not to like

 

Agreed!

 

Always been a hyper-v user! Love it!