Hyper-V Licensing

[CHiLL]

I have two VMware hosts at present that are hosting 20 VMs between them. Our VMware support agreement is nearing it's end and now we're looking at whether Hyper-V is a more cost effective solution for our virtual environment for the coming years.

 

1) Is it true that there are no extra costs to use Hyper-V, providing that we have server licenses? We are currently on the OVS-ES licensing agreement and have 2x hosts, with 2x CPUs with 8x cores each. So 4x CPUs and 16x cores. Is that license enough to cover all our Hyper-V needs?

2) How does Microsoft deal with the support aspect of Hyper-V? Is it like VMware where you pay for a support contract, or is it included within the licensing agreement described above?

3) Is there anything else from a cost perspective that I need to think about regarding the migration from VMware to Hyper-V?

[localzuk]

1) You would need a Windows Server Datacenter license for each host.

2) There's no support extra to it, if you want support you'd have to pay for a contract I think

3) VMWare is worth every penny, going by the issues I've had with Hyper-V over the last 5 years.

[ITGURU]

1) You would need a Windows Server Datacenter license for each host.

2) There's no support extra to it, if you want support you'd have to pay for a contract I think

3) VMWare is worth every penny, going by the issues I've had with Hyper-V over the last 5 years.

 

What issues in particular? I've never run VMware (Although inherited networks using it) and always used and converted to Hyper-V and never had an issue.

[Norphy]

Apart from the issues part, I agree with what localzuk has said. I personally have had no more issues with HyperV than I’ve had with VMware.

 

If you wanted a support contract, you’d have to get it from an MS partner or buy a question from MS Support when you have an issue.

 

The other thing to consider (and it’s entirely optional) is buying a System Center license so you can run Virtual Machine Manager to manage the hosts and Operations Manager to monitor them. VMM exposes some more options and it can do VM conversions.

[localzuk]

What issues in particular? I've never run VMware (Although inherited networks using it) and always used and converted to Hyper-V and never had an issue.

We had issues with servers freezing, VMs becoming unmanageable without a full reboot of the host, hosts rebooting for no reason, the list goes on. Every time we thought we had it resolved, something else happened that caused the entire cluster to fail.

 

So, we gave up, and migrated to VMWare, and we've had zero issues since.

[Steve21]

Never had problems with HyperV, the issues mentioned above all sound like the driver bug that was made by Broadcom but end of day driver issues happen

 

Wouldn't waste money on VMware unless there's something specific you need it for when you can get HyperV "free" (EES wise etc )

 

Steve

[localzuk]

Never had problems with HyperV, the issues mentioned above all sound like the driver bug that was made by Broadcom but end of day driver issues happen

 

Intel cards in the servers, replacing the broadcom ones that they used to have. Still had major issues.

[JackCPickup]

Hyper-V Server has 0 implications on licencing, it is a free product.

[DGardiner]

So 4x CPUs and 16x cores. Is that license enough to cover all our Hyper-V needs?

Im pretty sure this is 1 servers worth of licencing for the server OS's

 

you must buy 8 2 core licences as a minimum to licence a single machine, these are only about £220 to education though total.

 

if youre happy to use a core OS you can download hyper v server for free which requires no licencing

[bossman]

@localzuk

 

Been using Broadcom Nics in our servers for years and had no problems once we found out that some of the licensed Nics had changed hands and QLogic had produced their own drivers...once these were installed from the start we've never experienced any problems.....I've had other people argue the contrary to yours in that they have experienced more problems with VMware than Hyper-V but to be totally honest with you I much prefer Xenserver Hypervisor to either of them......Its what the major players use....I had no problems at all but because of JRE had to move to Hyper-V because our LA couldn't support Xenserver as I had my jobspec changed I couldn't either so that was that.....

 

You pays your money and you takes your choice......or in fact you don't as Xenserver is free totally except for support which you can purchase at a reasonable cost per annum...How much does VMware cost?......OOh! expensive we found.....we don't have the luxury being such a poor school from the North....

[JackCPickup]

@localzuk

I much prefer Xenserver Hypervisor to either of them......Its what the major players use....

 

Many have migrated or are migrating to KVM.

[Oaktech]

Hyper-V Server has 0 implications on licencing, it is a free product.

 

Yes and no - Windows DataCentre with the Hyper V role installed allows you to run and activate as many VMs as you like with no further licensing implications however you have to licence data centre in the first place. It isn't cheap, but it's often cheaper than VM Ware. The HyperV hypervisor is free, but you have to licence the guests you run on top of it, choose whichever benefits you most.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/hyper-v-server-2016

 

I've had no problems at all with Hyper V in the last, nearly 3 years. I run a 2 host-SAN cluster and a separate 2 host replica set up and they've been flawless.

[JackCPickup]

Yes and no - Windows DataCentre with the Hyper V role installed allows you to run and activate as many VMs as you like with no further licensing implications however you have to licence data centre in the first place. It isn't cheap, but it's often cheaper than VM Ware. The HyperV hypervisor is free, but you have to licence the guests you run on top of it, choose whichever benefits you most.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/hyper-v-server-2016

 

I've had no problems at all with Hyper V in the last, nearly 3 years. I run a 2 host-SAN cluster and a separate 2 host replica set up and they've been flawless.

 

Those implications are for Windows not Hyper-V.

 

If you install Hyper-V that way, installing the role as opposed to Hyper-V Server, it turns that "host" Windows into a Hyper-V management VM that autoloads at boot and uses raw storage. So licencing is always Windows, nothing to do with Hyper-V.

[JackCPickup]

It isn't cheap, but it's often cheaper than VM Ware.

 

If you need Datacentre licences due to VM amount then you'd need it regardless of hypervisor.

 

The HyperV hypervisor is free, but you have to licence the guests you run on top of it, choose whichever benefits you most.

 

You have to licence them no matter the hypervisor. Hyper-V doesn't bring any cost.

[Steve21]

That's being pretty nit picky really as you're talking about two different products.

 

HyperV Server isn't the same as Windows Server with hyperV enabled. One brings VM licenses with it and one doesn't. So obviously there's difference in pricing to the "original element" but you still have to pay for the license after it as you're just missing them in the first place (ignoring the 99.9% solution of using no windows machines)

 

Steve

[Oaktech]

If you need Datacentre licences due to VM amount then you'd need it regardless of hypervisor.

 

 

 

You have to licence them no matter the hypervisor. Hyper-V doesn't bring any cost.

 

I think we are talking at cross purposes. Once you licence data centre there are no further licence costs for standard guest VMs.

 

The role can be installed on any version of windows server for free, but then you have to then licence the guests on anything except datacentre.

 

There is a free standalone hypervisor that you can install that is just the role without the rest of the OS - like the VMware offering, but you have to licence the guests.

 

It's your choice as to which is more beneficial.

[bossman]

Many have migrated or are migrating to KVM.

 

 

 

Yes a few have but there are still many of the big players who are still utilising Xenserver for the moment.....KVM was designed after Xen which was always going to be but that is progress....

 

Anyway Amazon is still one of the major players using Xenserver.......

 

https://www.linux.com/news/kvm-or-xen-choosing-virtualization-platform

 

Still whichever one of the two you use its better than VMware or Hyper-V in my opinion anyway......and of course Amazon's opinion plus a few others hehe!

 

Have a good day

[JackCPickup]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. Once you licence data centre there are no further licence costs for standard guest VMs.

 

The role can be installed on any version of windows server for free, but then you have to then licence the guests on anything except datacentre.

 

There is a free standalone hypervisor that you can install that is just the role without the rest of the OS - like the VMware offering, but you have to licence the guests.

 

It's your choice as to which is more beneficial.

 

No confusion, just not sure how it fits in in response to me saying there's no licence implications to using Hyper-V.

 

You are always only licencing guests with the Windows licences regardless of the hypervisor. Installing Hyper-V role turns that "host" into a guest VM. That doesn't change how you use Standard or Datacentre licences.

[JackCPickup]

Yes a few have but there are still many of the big players who are still utilising Xenserver for the moment.....KVM was designed after Xen which was always going to be but that is progress....

 

Anyway Amazon is still one of the major players using Xenserver.......

 

https://www.linux.com/news/kvm-or-xen-choosing-virtualization-platform

 

Still whichever one of the two you use its better than VMware or Hyper-V in my opinion anyway......and of course Amazon's opinion plus a few others hehe!

 

Have a good day

 

For the time being yeh, they're the biggest currently migrating to KVM too. The problem with Xen was the when they ripped the good features from the free version last year and put it into the paid, admittedly the paid version is developing great since then. There is a "fork" being developed called xcp-ng which will stay free and opensource, all features.

[CHiLL]

Thanks for the replies, it's made for an interesting read. Maybe I'll just stick with Vmware and save the hassle!