Hyper-V or VMware?

[Chuckster]

I think it's worth noting that if you're thinking of ever going down the route of using the free version of ESXi, the freebie does not include the update utility to patch updates to your host. I have had the 'pleasure' of finding this out when I had upgraded to the latest version (4.1).

 

It seems the only way of pushing out updates is using the command line or SSH.

 

I think Hyper-V seems like the good alternative.

[andrew-virtusolve]

What happens if you need to go beyond 3 physical hosts?

 

I thought it would be a lot more than though. What sort of features are cut for the essentials version?

 

You will just not be able to add them into the essentials configuration, but you could run two independant installations with two lots of licensing, Most people are surprised at how cheap it can be done for - VMware are desperate to extend their reach into the environments where people are going Xen or Hyper-V for cost reasons and have been offering a half price deal on essentials for ages.

 

Full details in PDF:

 

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware-vSphere-4-Essentials-Editions-DS-EN.pdf

[andrew-virtusolve]

What happens if you need to go beyond 3 physical hosts?

 

I thought it would be a lot more than though. What sort of features are cut for the essentials version?

 

http://www.vmguru.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/VMware-vSphere-SMB-Editions.png

 

http://www.vmguru.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/VMware-vSphere-Editions-300x254.png

 

Hardly any features cut, if you do need beyond three hosts you can get multiple licences but you won't be able to manage them through a single vCenter, not a major issue - but at that stage you are better shifting to full licences.

 

Essentials is a great way to do things in a much cheaper way than otherwise

[Dave_O]

Installed Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 last week onto HyperV hosts and VM clients (terminal services) and you know what, with the memory over commit, I think HyperV is starting to look like a viable, cheap (God knows we don't say that very often about MS) option and that's from a VMWare advocate of 5 years. One of the reasons for the success of VMWare has been the fact that there is a limited HCL containing only high quality hardware which forced you to buy quality kit to justify the outlay. One concern for me with HyperV is that in typical fashion (and since there is not a limited HCL as with VMWare) school's will try and put it on home built or cheap hardware and then complain when it doesn't last or work. Refering back to advice from one of my earlier posts:- buy quality brand named servers and storage with long warranties.

 

Dave O

[nicholab]

The licensing issue is not a problem if you are an school as most are MS houses. You have to go VMware if you what to virtualize a BSD machine.

[zag]

I run hyper-v on 4 x Dell R300 machines with basic configs and 16gb of ram.

 

Cost £900 each and no problems yet.

 

I botched in a couple of SSD drives as well for good measure

[gshaw]

One concern for me with HyperV is that in typical fashion (and since there is not a limited HCL as with VMWare) school's will try and put it on home built or cheap hardware and then complain when it doesn't last or work. Refering back to advice from one of my earlier posts:- buy quality brand named servers and storage with long warranties.

 

My concern is on a similar nature that Hyper-V relies on third party drivers and I can imagine a Windows Update breaking something like a NIC driver and knocking out the host machine. For example with NIC teaming Microsoft says it's down to the network card manufacturer to make it work whereas on VMWare it just... works.

 

I'm not a fanboy of either platform (yet) and making the choice between the two is more difficult as time goes on. VMWare have made their suite a lot more affordable with Essentials Plus but the hard-limit of 3 hosts is really harsh for education customers. Surely they could've made the upgrade path a bit fairer for people buying the academic edition if you need to add an extra host in a year or two? That's the only thing that's making me waver on VMWare as it stands, it's a bit of a calculated risk (although that said with the hardware we're looking it we should have plenty spare capacity )

 

The other issue with Hyper-V is that Windows is still underneath whatever way you look at it... you have to patch it like a Windows box and reboot like a Windows box even if the patches have nothing to do with the virtualisation software. If I'm wrong on that one I'm happy to be corrected. Again that's something I don't want to do to my virtual hosts. As it's a Windows box do you run AV on it, if not then what happens if a Conficker-type virus \ worm comes out that affects the Hyper-V \ Windows layer? Not saying it will happen but it could. Thoughts?

 

My gut feeling is that Hyper-V will work but it'll take a lot more babysitting and configuration over time than the equivalent VMWare installation which seems to have built its reputation on being solid and stable. Again I'd welcome input from both sides to see if that's really the case (and for Hyper-V I mean people using CSVs, Live Migration and the higher-level features).

 

The other argument is with VDI but that's a game of guess the future as no-one has really cracked it at the moment... costs for the hardware and licensing don't really add up unless you're aiming at TCO savings in the long-term whereas server virtualisation pays for itself nearly straight away but that's for another topic...

[SYNACK]

@gshaw - I see your point but it is my understanding that VMware uses drivers for certain stuff too:

HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server series -  Download drivers and software - HP Business Support Center

 

Again both are valid solutions and as I was telling someone else which one you pick depnds on what you are doing (which OSs) and personal preference.

[Dave_O]

GShaw

 

.. but the hard-limit of 3 hosts is really harsh for education customers.

 

If you spec your hosts correctly there are very few schools (possibly with the exception of ones over 2000 students) that would need more than 3 ESX hosts now or over the next 2-3 years. How many students/staff do you have? How many physical servers do you presently run? Other than Exchange and SQL most servers actually use very little memory so you can have loads on one box. We run on average 15 servers per host.

 

you have to patch it like a Windows box and reboot like a Windows box even if the patches have nothing to do with the virtualisation software

 

Simple, don't patch unless it benefits virtualisation. You can isolate your HyperV servers, use the built in firewall to lock down everything or use the command line only install (my personal favorite). It just takes a bit of time (not unlike vMWare). The patching process is no different in VMWare or MS. Move your VMs onto another host (migrate), patch said host, move stuff back and repeat until all hosts done.

 

 

The other argument is with VDI

 

You've read my threads on VDI already.

 

Again I'd welcome input from both sides to see if that's really the case

 

I set HyperV up in a fraction of the time it took me to setup for VMWare but that was mainly because I was learning about SAN switches, zoning, SAN LUN carving etc when doing the VMWare install. My knowledge of VMWare virtualisation helped me to make the right decisions for HyperV.

 

As to "babysitting and configuration" not really touched the HyperV side for months, set it up and it just works. As I have said before this is down to good hardware.

 

Don't much like the machine templating and ISO store implementation in HyperV (sorry MS Virtual Machine Manager) much better in vSphere. Live migrations works fine in both. Storage migration is excellent in VMWare not really tried it in HyperV but I believe its fairly straight forward.

 

As for hardware compatibility for migration, now that, I believe, is the big difference. You can hide the processor and hardware differences in vSphere giving you the ability to use virtually any mixture of processor type on the host. With HyperV it does suggest you use exactly (and they do emphasise exactly) the same hardware. Has anyone tried with differing hardware/processor hosts? Fortunately my hosts were identical. If this is the case either make sure you buy all the hosts at one time or ensure the servers will be available in a coulpe of years time when you scale up.

 

At the end of the day the decision is yours. If, like us, you change your mind (in our case VDI only) and you have invested in good hardware - on the HCL then changing is something you can do easily thanks to built in P-to-V or V-to-V capabilities in both implementations so all will not be lost. Make sure you factor in the cost of a good backup solution whichever way you jump. Hope this helps

 

Dave O

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dave_O
Add section on host compatibility

[Dave_O]

GShaw

 

Looking at your blog your main concerns seem to be with:-

 

 

1. NIC teaming - In a school environment this is really not an issue. Unless you are streaming video from every server in school, normal network use (internet, Sharepoint, Exchange, file services etc) do not generate enough traffic per host (based on 15 VMs per host) to even warrant NIC teaming. Having watched network traffic from each host at peak times (eg start/end of lessons) traffic rarely gets above 40% of a 1Gb NIC.

 

2. Hyper-V CSV - Took me a while to get my head round CSV (extra folder on C drive) but it works and has worked (despite my reservations) fine for 3 months. (More of a testament to the SAN hardware)

 

3. Hyper-V and Linux - yep thats an issue, no solution as yet

 

4. Patching - Read my previous post. Provided you isolate the servers (eg put them on a different subnet, no access to internet, apply selective patches manually from USB) they don't need much maintenance.

 

5. Backup - We use DPM for HyperV, love the product not really tested recovery yet. On the vSphere side we use Veeam, brilliant product. Have used it to recover several full VMs and extracted files never fails. No point in ditching the backups that you have just add to them. Showing my anal tendancies (and following a risk assessment process that perhaps went a little too far and lost perspective in terms of impact and likelihood), if I tell you that for our file servers (about 2Tb all virtual) we do:-

 

Full VM backup once per week (Veeam)

Full file level backup using Backup Exec once per week with differentials daily onto encrypted LTO4 tapes

DPM backups with snaps taken twice per day (12:30pm and 6pm)

 

and to cover the inevitable nuclear strike

 

Full VM backup once per week (Veeam) to another location (close enough for lan but far enough away to withstand the initial blast and EM pulse)

 

Oops sorry almost forgot have a Dell 124T LTO2 tape library stacked with tapes which does file level backups using Backup Exec every couple of weeks at some random time hosted in a location seperate to all the rest.

 

6. Server migration - vSphere P2V is excellent. I had 24 Dell servers which I was planning on virtualising back in 2006 over the space of a year. Ended up doing them all in 4 weeks. P2V is fine if you have a complicated install you just want to get off the tin. A longer term solution, though, is to build it native in the virtual environment much better performance. It was for us this process that took the time but on the plus side you can do it when you like. As an example from Dec 2009 to Aug 2010 we built our new domain in a protected area of the virtual environment, transfered the data and swapped over in September with minimal loss of service. Sorry not really tried the Hyper-V P2V process no real need just built machines native.

 

Dave O

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dave_O

[gshaw]

Wow that's some backup routine! We've got Backup Exec 2010 but we want to drop the support \ maintenance now as the price is getting silly for the yearly renewals. On top of that we want something to backup the VMs which will either be DPM (for Hyper-V) or maybe for VMWare the Data Recovery tool. We're not paying out for the Backup Exec VM agents as there also seems to be a growing number of people who aren't happy with the amount of errors the product keeps throwing up and are now looking elsewhere.

 

Even if we go VMWare we're still looking at DPM as it does the continuous backups for ease of restore then back off to tape weekly. Also helps it's included in our Campus license. That said we still need a solution to put the VM backups on tape and if going down the VMWare route it seems to be a bit more complicated to get to that point as Veeam and VDR both seem to only natively support disk and require a bit of creativity to get the files off to tape

 

Have to say on this front I think Hyper-V and DPM 2010 seem a good combination and looks a neater and more flexible solution as long as everything works as it says on the tin...

 

My original design for the hardware was based on HP DL380 servers for something standard, proven and reliable. The SAN is more up for debate but seems to be coming down to either HP or EMC (price will most likely decide that one). We've also been recommended to look at the Intel Modular Server but the fact it's an OEM box doesn't instil me with as much confidence as the HP kit does.

 

As for spec I'm going 3 x minimum dual quad core CPU (maybe even 6 core if I can get the price down) with 32GB RAM... will leave plenty room for expansion and really I guess the 3 host limit is me being paranoid as much as anything else (although I reckon better to be paranoid than overconfident and miss something out!)

 

It sounds like you're using a mixture of both virtualisation products at the moment so here's a question... if you had to choose one platform which would it be (if we take the cost issue out of the equation for a moment)

Edited February 23, 2011 by gshaw

[Dave_O]

GShaw

 

1. Not a great fan of Data Recovery tool. I tried it but there were multiple VM failures on backup and at the time it did assume you were implementing remote SAN LUN mirroring which we deemed too expensive to implement (note all my backup solutions are relatively cheap).

 

2, We use Backup Exec 12.5 never bought maintenance or support just worked with the product as it is only does file backups which also include backing up the Veeam backups.

 

3. Don't rate the Backup Exec VMWare solution.

 

4. I would strongly recommend Veeam if you choose VMWare. DPM is not enough. The main problems you will find with virtual machines is that if the machine files get screwed you will have to restore the full VM DPM cannot do this. My backup rationale goes as follows:- Do a full VM backup once a week then use DPM to maintain up to date files during the week. If VM gets screwed on Wednesday, recover full VM from lets Saturday and restore user files from DPM up to point in time. Always have some way of doing a full VM backup (not Data Recovery Tool!) separate to your SAN this is essential. Learnt that the hard way. To answer your question Veeam gives you, off SAN, full VM backup capability this along with DPM gives you the ability to recover to point in time (almost depending on you DPM rotation).

 

5. The servers and SAN (hardware) I thought were really important when I started out but 5 years on they're really not. It's just a point in time decision based on price, performance, warranty etc. As long as you remember buy big names and make sure the warranties (5 years if possible) cover the disks, that's the really important bit. Our kit is IBM, not the fastest in the world (measured against massive enterprise kit - but in a school environment more than good enough) but the kit has been rock solid. That knowledge along with the 5 year warranties is priceless. Will I go for IBM when we start to renew in 2012? yes no question.

 

6. Processors are a non-issue, we run 45 VMs on 3 ESXs and the processor use is negligable. Put you money into the memory I suggest 48Gb per host if you intend to put more than 15 VMs per host.

 

Answer to your last question:- VMWare always.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dave_O

[gshaw]

Thanks for such a detailed reply, just what I've been looking for... real world experience of using the products is the most valuable info

 

Had a feeling VDR might be buggy so looks like DPM + Veeam is the route to go. One more qu, how much space does DPM use up e.g total size of data plus 50% etc. Just plucked that number out the air tbh, not sure how much space it uses for the change deltas after the initial backup.

 

I was thinking of building an OEM box to do the backups with 1-2TB SATA disks to give enough capacity then hook it up to the tape drive for off-site backups.

[TheScarfedOne]

HyperV here - running my two CAS Exchange boxes in VM in it. Simple to set up, part of the OS etc...

[Dave_O]

GShaw

 

We have a Dell 2950 with 6x 1.5Tb dedicated to DPM ing located across the other side of school. We use DPM for all file servers, Exchange, SQL (inc SIMS) and HyperV with 2 snaps per day kept for 60 days. There's plenty of space still on the server (30%) been going for a year. Putting 2Tb drives in would give you plenty of space

[Cmd.exe]

For what its worth, we are a vmware house but looking to migrate to hyper-v at easter.

We will make a £800 saving a year for the vmware support renewal, but thats not the reason we are switching.

We got vmware in nearly 3 years ago when hyper-v was not the product it is now, but since it went in we have struggled on occasions with a lack of training on the platform and being a linux based system, we haven't felt confident dealing with it when issues occurred (and they have occurred).

 

We feel now that SP1 is out, delivered dynamic memory, we will will not lose any functionality by switching to hyper-v (except FT which we dont use) and we hope to benefit from a platform which is easier to support, troubleshoot when errors occur and offers integration with system center and full integration with DPM (we do use DPM for backing up our servers, but it sits on top, no vm awareness).

 

Nothing wrong with vmware - its a good product, used everywhere with great success... but for us and our situation, i believe hyper-v will suit us better.

[gshaw]

That's interesting, not known of many places switching from VMWare to Hyper-V until now.

 

The thing that Microsoft have been quite clever with is that they've got a full integrated solution with Hyper-V and DPM 2010 whereas going down the VMWare route is going to cost us again for Veeam. It just seems MS are going to give more from the package but VMWare still has the technical merit... very hard choice...

[Arthur]

^ Any particular reason (apart from it being popular)?

[gshaw]

Having spoke to a few colleges I think I've made a final choice with VMWare, just need to stick to it now

 

With all the other systems I need to look after I want the most solid and proven platform to put the infrastructure on and overall VMWare will be easier to manage in the long run. £1600 and £800 a year support isn't a lot and the saving on Backup Exec pays for that straight away

[rbance]

In all honesty I find it hard to go past vmware in this space....the only ither virtualisation I would consider is out of our league...(IBM System P and System Z mainframe...)

 

running vmware esx4.1 + vsphere licensing. have a 3 server HA on one site. and 1 esxi 4.1 at second site....second site is has DC, DHCP, DFS and other inf functions..all replicated from main site..

using IBM FASTBACK for backup with cross-site replication of backups

Using Veeam replication to perform DR functions from 3 Server HA cluster to servers based in separate locations....

Using IP Storage via Thecus devices...

and also not using any Storage replication.... I would avoid this and SAN switches like the plague.....they can require specialist skills most of us will not have...

[rbance]

also...vmware has a better management suite by a long way....unless mistaken, hyper-V has nothing like vsphere...however hyper-v r2 may be different.......

[rbance]

Microsoft's Hyper-V R2 vs. VMware's vSphere: A feature comparison | TechRepublic

 

this is interesting....