+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. VMware Dude! TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    327

    Certifications
    vExpert | CCA | CCAA | MCSA | MCTS | MCITP:EMA 2010 | VCP5-DCV/DT | VTSP4/5 | VSP 5 | Network +
    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathmage View Post
    Hyper-V: the hypervisor resides inside of Windows Server O/S, has some pretty kool features, but no intuitive pane of glass per-say for Managment, VM escape is 100% a possibility and a security concern. The only plus side I can tell is that Hyper-V is included with a Standard and above Server O/S's license so no need to invest in licensing, so it's free.

    VMware: hypervisor is built upon itself, no VM escape possible or very minimal risk of it. Better management of resources, way more productivity features, more stable. Very easy to use Management pane with vCenter. Costs a boatload.
    I am a VMware guy all the way, but I do have to admit, Hyper-V has come a long way! For much better security, you can run Hyper-V on a Windows Core edition which eliminates a lot of the vulnerabilities plus the generic windows crashes like explorer faults. Another nice aspect to Hyper-V is that it is compatible with more hardware, just like you mention, it runs inside an OS.

    Hyper-V also has a management solution called SCVMM, similar to vCenter. The most important part to consider, is that both products have their strengths, but each product will be managed differently.. After all, one is based on the linux/unix kernel, the other is Windows
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  2. SS -->
  3. Go ping yourself... phoeneous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Console.WriteLine("Yo");
    Posts
    2,316

    Certifications
    Pimp status
    #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jibbajabba View Post
    No offence, but probably not comparable with a big production environment
    No offence taken, care to elaborate?
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  4. Senior Member thenjduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    892

    Certifications
    MCP, MCSA, MCSE, MCITP EA, MCSE 2012, CCNA, VCP 5, CCA, CCEE, CCIA, CCE-V
    #28
    Quote Originally Posted by phoeneous View Post
    No offence taken, care to elaborate?
    I would like the elaboration too and no offense taken

    I have used both HyperV and VMWare in Production ENV. They both have their benefits and downfalls. I will tell you vmware has alot more stablization then HyperV. I seen HyperV Host get stuck in Microsoft Failover Clustering hell and the VM never come up because not sure where to start. That was in Windows 2008 R2 and I hear 2012 is better to handle those problems now.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  5. Senior Member joelsfood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    969

    Certifications
    CCIE:DC, CCNP:DC, CCNA:DC, CCDA, VCP:DCV, VCP:NV, JNCIA-JUNOS
    #29
    Quote Originally Posted by phoeneous View Post
    No offence taken, care to elaborate?
    I suspect he's referring to the fact that a single host (local storage?) 12 VMs, no redundancy, doesn't exactly have the same requirements, stress or load that a large production Vmware environment might be under, so that stability in one doesn't necessarily equate to stability in the other. IE, a hypervisor might be fine in the first situation, but that might not translate into an environment that required a 10 node cluster, hundreds of VMs, a mix of iSCSI and FC storage, etc.

    On the original question, Vsphere if you can afford it.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12

Social Networking & Bookmarks