Virtualisation - VMware vs HyperV

[BKGarry]

Hello All,

 

Thought 2012 was the most appropriate forum to put this in.

 

Simple question here, if you are virtualising your servers for the first time (ever mind hosts and SANs etc as I am getting quotes for them form various Virtualisation Specialists) but all I would like to know is what would/do you use to virtualise your server infrastructure, VMware vSphere or Microsoft HyperV and the reasons why.

 

Thank you all in advance

[Davit2005]

VMWare all the way, 21 hosts to manage (90+ VM's), been using VMWare since version 3.5.

 

 

Not had much experience with Hyper-V but its price advantage is hard to dismiss. The thing I like about VMWare is it's light resource foot print on the host and the management/features.

[PotNoodleTech]

VMware for me. Reasons?

 

1. Download the free ESXi version onto memory stick, plug memory stick into server (or spare PC) and boot. Evaluate to see if it meets your needs. If so, roll it out, possibly licence it if you need more of the advanced features failover, etc). It needs very little maintenance, and is still the market leader.

 

HyperV just seems a bit .. archaic and bloated to me. A hypervisor should just concentrate on hypervis..ing... if that makes sense.

 

Many others will disagree, I won't deny that HyperV can work out significantly cheaper if your sing EES datacentre licencing etc, but for me.. at what cost pennypinching something that's going to be powering your entire infracture? The vast majority of schools in the UK could get away with Essentials / Essentials Plus on up to 3 hosts.

[Oaktech]

I would always choose VMWare basically because it's host platform is lighter weight and requires less intervention than HyperV.

 

I find it easier to configure and more flexible for every purpose I've put it to.

 

The only downside to it that I can see over hyper V is that if you need the more advanced features it can get expensive to licence whereas hyperv is included in most EES and OVS models.

[mikkydoos]

VMWare sits on Linux. End of story. Super sturdy.

 

Why run Windows on a Windows platform. Never used it but I bet its really buggy.

 

10 - MS 2012 servers on a £6000 host machine. Got room for a few more

[mikkydoos]

Oh, get extra NIC's in your host machine. You'll need it to network fast.

[3s-gtech]

Hyper-V makes a lot of sense for simplicity (it's very easy to use) and licensing reasons - Windows Server Datacentre is very cheap on EES. Downsides - Windows Updates are a pain on a Hyper-V host, where ESXi just sites happily on its memory stick, waiting for a new version when you're ready to upgrade it.

[tmcd35]

Hyper-V here. 3 Hosts, 30-ish virtual servers. I've no idea what the more intervention or buggy-ness is, I've never experienced it. Solid as a rock and does the job I need. VMWare is overkill in this environment.

[Marshall_IT]

I used to have VMWare at my last School and came to Hyper-V 2008. Really hated it! Since updating though, it's almost a completely different system.

2012 R2 is a massive step up compared to early MS offerings.

My preference would always be for VMWare but the cost difference at the moment just isn't worth it. I had the essentials plus from vmware and it was great. But Hyper-V 2012 r2 does most if not all of the same things now.

You can also install core 2012 on your hosts to reduce your footprint.

[Dkeen94]

VMware without a doubt used this at my last place and its just extremely easy to use. When i changed jobs they had some virtual servers on Hyperv 2008r2 but i have virtualisation planned in the early part of next year which is moving everything onto VmWare over two hosts!

[localzuk]

I still don't understand any school spending money on VMWare, when Hyper-V is included in Windows server licensing and includes all those "pay for extras" out of the box that VMWare offers for an extra.

 

Failover? Built in.

Live migration? Built in.

Ability to host your VHDX files on a SMB3 share, rather than the complexities of iSCSI? Built in.

 

I just cannot see any advantage to paying more for the same functionality. I've never had any issues with Hyper-V on 2012. Intervention is minimal.

 

HyperV just seems a bit .. archaic and bloated to me. A hypervisor should just concentrate on hypervis..ing... if that makes sense.

 

Hyper-V can do exactly that - you don't need to install full Windows, you can install the bare metal hypervisor. When you do a Windows+Hyper-V install, it actually puts Windows in a guest partition on top of the Hyper-V infrastructure anyway.

Edited December 10, 2014 by localzuk

[Patrick]

Anyone at primary level bothered to move into virtualisation? We are still on single server hosting many roles (AD DC, DHCP, print file server) and haven't really felt the need to move. I mean, I've had moments where I've needed to reboot the print server and that's obviously taken everyone down, but its rare that happens.

[sonofsanta]

Hyper-V is plenty for schools. Been running it on 2008R2 for over three years now, and 2012R2 is much improved (Hyper-V is probably the fastest moving part of Windows Server at the moment). Can't see why you'd waste money on VMWare for a school sized deployment - though, to be fair, I think their licencing has changed since the last time I looked at it.

 

Why run Windows on a Windows platform. Never used it but I bet its really buggy.

 

I mean, why bother with facts when you can just make stuff up based on nothing but biases and hearsay?

[mikkydoos]

My preference would always be for VMWare but the cost difference at the moment just isn't worth it. I had the essentials plus from vmware and it was great. But Hyper-V 2012 r2 does most if not all of the same things now.

You can also install core 2012 on your hosts to reduce your footprint.

 

... Not targetted at your comment Marshall but....

 

You get what you pay for... this is your whole infrastructure. I just don't trust MS products to be solid - personal opinion.

 

2 VM hosts and maybe a Veeam replication host would be big overkill but very very sturdy for years to come.

 

I'm running mine on ESXi - dual host and Veeam backup and replication backing up daily onto a NAS.

 

Never had a hitch (apart from my VM'd Server 2008 borking out after I'd forgotten to snapshot it !!!!)

[mikkydoos]

I mean, why bother with facts when you can just make stuff up based on nothing but biases and hearsay?

 

... and evaluating it for six months then choosing another product. Never used it in a live environment I meant. That comment was my very well experienced assumption. Like any other MS product isn't buggy. Come on !

Edited December 10, 2014 by mikkydoos

[Dos_Box]

Moving to Thin Clients and Virtual Machines forum.

[localzuk]

... Not targetted at your comment Marshall but....

 

You get what you pay for... this is your whole infrastructure. I just don't trust MS products to be solid - personal opinion.

 

You should base your opinion on facts though. Evidence disagrees with your opinion.

 

2 VM hosts and maybe a Veeam replication host would be big overkill but very very sturdy for years to come.

 

I'm running mine on ESXi - dual host and Veeam backup and replication backing up daily onto a NAS.

 

Never had a hitch (apart from my VM'd Server 2008 borking out after I'd forgotten to snapshot it !!!!)

 

Running 25 VMs on 2 Hyper-V hosts clustered and using a central SMB share. Not had a hitch in 16 months.

[tmcd35]

I used VMWare at my last place. Got VMWare certified and everything. Had ESXi been released when I moved here I'd have almost certainly gone down that route. But even then Hyper-V in 2008R2 did what I needed here to not be able to justify spending on VMWare.

 

Now the "free" choice is between Hyper-V and ESXi. It's no contest, Hyper-V has more features. If you're large enough to need the central management tools and levels of fail over that the paid for VMWare offers then it's a great choice, for everyone else - you're paying out twice to get something you've already bought in Server 2012R2 DataCenter.

 

Let's face it, if you're running a Windows network and are serious about virtualisation, you're buying DataCenter anyway. As for Hyper-V footprint, I've said it before, if the resources taken up by running the full 2012R2 OS as host is a concern then you've miss-spec'd your host server.

 

As for primaries, We've considered it for several of our supported feeder schools but have never gone down that route. They're just not big enough to need it. Server spec's and hardware prices might make us reconsider on their next refresh. If we do, ESXi might actually be the best fit here. Actually the old Microsoft Virtual Server, or VMWare Server (GSX), might have been better products for these small scale single hosts but alas they're now long discontinued.

[mrbios]

Currently using VMware, have been since ESXi 3.5, so about 6ish years or so. It's a fantastic product, incredibly stable, love vMotion and storage vmotion. It was a perfect product at a cost to fill a need until Hyper-V became a better product.

 

As of the 2012R2 i see no reason to keep VMware here anymore. Hyper-V 2008 wasn't good enough to be considered, no two ways about it, vmware was simply the better product back then, but now it's just a wasted licensing cost that could be spent on something more worthwhile with hyper-v doing the backend.

 

Got a server replacement cycle coming up next year, I was thinking that'll be my time for moving away from vmware to hyper-v but what with windows 10 and server 10, I'm tempted to stick with it for 6-12 months extra and let that mature rather than doing everything twice. One for me to mull over here i guess....but to answer the question, if i was starting out with virtualisation now, hyper-v absolutely certain of it.

[smithson83]

All you guys running VMware EXSi etc, how do you licence your Server OS's???

 

With MS 2012R2 Datacentre you install it on your host, run Hyper-V and all your Server2012-Std VM Servers are included in the price. If you run VMware as your hypervisor, can you still licence DC and get all your VM's included?

Edited December 10, 2014 by smithson83

[mikkydoos]

All you guys running VMware EXSi etc, how to you licence your Server OS's???

 

with MS 2012R2 Datacentre you install it on your host, run Hyper-V and all your Virtual MS servers are included in the price. If you run VMware as your hypervisor, can you still licence DC and get all your VM's included?

 

 

MS standard volume licensing. ESXi is the cost on top. Its not that much though.

Edited December 10, 2014 by mikkydoos

[smithson83]

MS standard volume licensing. ESXi is the cost on top. Its not that much though.

 

So you licence all your Servers individually? Does that not work out a lot more than a single(or multiple depending on the number of hosts etc) DC licence?

[mikkydoos]

So you licence all your Servers individually? Does that not work out a lot more than a single(or multiple depending on the number of hosts etc) DC licence?

 

I don't know. They all come under our EES licensing based on FTE staff

[tmcd35]

So you licence all your Servers individually? Does that not work out a lot more than a single(or multiple depending on the number of hosts etc) DC licence?

 

I don't know. They all come under our EES licensing based on FTE staff

 

The licencing requirements for Windows Server guest OS's is 100% identical in both VMWare and Hyper-V. The cheapest answer is often Windows DataCenter x ((Number of physical CPU's in Host Server/2)rounded up to the nearest power of 2). If you plan to run less than 8 VM's on the host, ever, then Enterprise is cheaper to license.

 

It can be purchased either as a separate perpetual license or as part of an annual EES subscription.

[sonofsanta]

... and evaluating it for six months then choosing another product. Never used it in a live environment I meant. That comment was my very well experienced assumption. Like any other MS product isn't buggy. Come on !

 

MS products aren't always perfect, no. But I can't think of a single Hyper-V bug I've suffered in production. *nix is hardly perfect either, is it? Doesn't mean I should disregard all of VMWare just because it runs on Linux. Each product has to be judged on its own merits, and IME Hyper-V is reliable and effective and more than meets my needs as a single site secondary.