Do you use VMWare or Hyper-V?

[Qas]

Hi All,

 

I wanted to know what virtualisation technology you use. I currently use VMWare and have previously used Hyper-V. I like both technologies to be honest and both do the job of virtualising 25 servers very reliably.

 

In your opinion, what are the pros and cons of using either and what do you guys / girls use and why?

[fairm010]

Use VMWare ESXi here, because it is free!

[newpersn]

Use VMWare ESXi here, because it is free!

 

Is it really free?

[fairm010]

Yes. Using it here on 2 hosts. You used to be limited by physical processors but that has been removed.

[Arreks]

Hyper-V here I've used both and tbh I'm fine with either..

[sparkeh]

I think the gap between Hyper-V and Vmware is closing all the time.

 

My summary is that if you are looking at free versions, then Hyper-V does a lot more so is a sensible choice. At the other, premium, end, Vmware still offers functionality that Hyper-V doesn't so if you have the bucks, that is a good choice. Its all about what you want to achieve really.

 

I use Hyper-V, it does what we need, is reliable and cheap.

[SHimmer45]

hyper-v and vmware server here

[Qas]

How and why would you use both? Interested to see what scenario you have to justify that.

 

hyper-v and vmware server here

[SteveM555]

Hyper-V here. It was cost effective as we were buying new servers anyway - After using it for just over two years we're very happy.

[Qas]

Yes we are also using it on 2 hosts. It works well but when I used Hyper-V previously, that also worked well.

I am trying to find a scenario where one is better / more suitable than the other.

 

Yes. Using it here on 2 hosts. You used to be limited by physical processors but that has been removed.

[SHimmer45]

How and why would you use both? Interested to see what scenario you have to justify that.

 

VMware is on an older existing host

newer one is Hyper-V

we only have 2 standalone hosts

if we were to add more we would make a decision which way to go

[3s-gtech]

We use both. We started on ESXi, and added Hyper-V hosts as it improved. The ESXi hosts are used where we have Select licenses for the guest OSs, Hyper-V is used where we need the latest OS under Datacentre licensing. Works nicely and I'm happy with it - I can move machines between them to a point, they all back up fine, and the ESXi hosts run from a memory stick.

[pcstru]

We use VMWare. For us it has a more mature tool set and offers more features than Hyper-V but the downside is licence costs. Support is also very good whereas support for anything MS is ... well, it's just pants.

[themightymrp]

Went from VMware to Hyper-V, more than happy with both really but I just like Hyper-V as I use it more often on my Win 8.1 machine

[Oaktech]

I use Hyper V here, because it was here when I got here.

 

I don't really like it much because I find the windows host OS is way hungrier than the VMware hypervisor.

 

I also prefer the VMware option because HyperV updates are a bit of a pain, HyperV hosts requires patching every couple of days and the VMware hypervisor rarely requires patching, if you have shared storage it is better because you can configure cluster aware updating.

 

I also find the HyperV configuration way more convoluted than that Of VMware. I configured failover on a pair of VMware servers and an iscsi nas in about 2 hours, I've been at my current place for a year and the HyperV failover cluster is still hit and miss with permission issues.

 

I also find what you can do with virtual switches much more limited in HyperV compared to VMware.

[Geoff]

Our main data centre runs VMware w/VCentre on six hosts. Our backup DR site has the same infrastructure. However our branch offices have a single server for file and print that runs a DC in a Hyper-V VM.

[SHimmer45]

I use Hyper V here, because it was here when I got here.

I don't really like it much because I find the windows host OS is way hungrier than the VMware hypervisor.

 

Server 2012 / R2 Full with the hyperV role install or Hyper-V Server?

[Oaktech]

Server 2012 / R2 Full with the hyperV role install or Hyper-V Server?

 

Worse than that... 2008r2 full with HyperV role.

 

There's no point changing it now because in less than 6 months time I'm throwing away everything I've got physical server wise and going to 2 new servers and shared storage. At which point I will make a judgement call on whether I need VMWare's paid features, because If I don't It'll be VMWare all the way!

[Arthur]

I find the Windows host OS is way hungrier than the VMware hypervisor.

Once you take into account the 8GB RAM+ that vCenter requires it wipes out any advantage VMware's hypervisor has over Hyper-V.

 

Worse than that... 2008 R2 full with Hyper-V role.

Hyper-V on Windows Server 2012 R2 (and WS2016) is much better.

 

I don't particularly like 2008 R2 Hyper-V either (considering it's over 6 years old that's to be expected though).

[dhicks]

I wanted to know what virtualisation technology you use.

 

Currently XenServer for our "enterprise" IT (Windows Domain Controllers, Exchange server, etc), although the new storage features included in Windows Server 2016 sound as though they might be a compelling enough reason for a change next year. Our distributed cloud system uses Xen as it was the easiest option for programatic control and assignment of dedicated harddrives (rather than virtual volumes) to virtual machines.

[Oaktech]

Once you take into account the 8GB RAM+ that vCenter requires it wipes out any advantage VMware's hypervisor has over Hyper-V.

 

I appreciate you are probably being flippant, but I have loads of other stuff that requires cr@p-tons of RAM, HP Procurve software for instance, and I can run that on my workstation without it affecting other people, everything that affects the server affects other people and that to me is a problem!

[GRitchie]

+1 for VMWare ESXi through and through.

Free, takes less RAM than running an entire WinServer for a hypervisor, links with VEEAM nicely.

[mrbios]

Vmware here including a vCenter, running 5 hosts, 3 in one cluster (New hosts, all same spec and age, running 19 VMs) 2 in another (old hosts, both same spec, running 2 terminal server VMs, one per host with 50% of ram assigned to each, so they can failover if one host dies). vCenter server standard + standard edition licenses on the hosts. All hosts sharing a Nimble CS215 for storage.....such an awesome bit of kit!

 

Looked at moving to Hyper-V last year purely from a cost perspective, but i've decided to wait to see how these nano things progress. I'd much prefer a tiny little hypervisor if it happens to be what they're working towards....also difficult to move away from something that's been so rock solid just for a little bit less on our licensing budget each year.

Edited September 11, 2015 by mrbios

[PotNoodleTech]

Have moved from ESXi to Hyper V in the summer. I was a bit loath to do it as I've been using ESXi in anger since 2009 and it's never put a foot wrong. I want to leverage more advanced functions (clustering, SSD caching, etc), and in ESXi this meant buying the full edition for each host. This was cost prohibitive compared to HyperV on Windows EES Licences.

 

So far HyperV running well. The "Hypervisor footprint" is a bit of a non issue really as if you're utilising your hosts so that 1-2% total CPU hypervisor use could make a performance difference then frankly you need to buy new hosts anyway.

 

The only thing I miss about ESXi is being able to install it on SD card/ USB Stick. The host storage footprint is a lot bigger and less flexible with HyperV.

 

I think they are both totally fit for purpose and any school would do well to run both, just use whatever one you are more comfortable with.

 

The main thing is that you are virtualised and have all of the benefits of that, what you are virtualised with, is of less importance.

[Qas]

Thanks for all of your replies.

 

As expected, we have quite a good mix. As AButters said, use what you are more comfortable with. If you are comfortable with both, then I guess you use what you already have or what your team as a whole prefer.

 

I agree with the comment on support however. VMware support in my experience has been excellent compared to Microsoft so if having good support is a need then that may sway people towards VMware.