+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. was here.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,504
    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    apple to oranges. ESX is a hypervisor, its not totally free. Hyperv is a hypervisor, its totally free.
    Fine. If you prefer to do it this way.

    Free ESXi is a cut down version of ESXi. It doesn't come with VirtualCenter.
    Free Hyper-V is a cut down version of Server 2008. It doesn't come with SCVMM.

    If you expect the full version of ESXi including VirtualCenter features for free then I expect the full version of Hyper-V including SCVMM features for free. Both are hypervisors and both have a management application which adds features.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Wrong. Those are features of SCVMM, not HyperV. As its described in thsi thread, you lose features of ESX (not VirtualCenter) by not purchasing ESX.
    Cloning is part of VirtualCenter. It was part of VirtualCenter before they even made the free ESXi release. VirtualCenter isn't free. You can do it like JD did and make a script or work around it via the VI Client by copying vmdk files in the datastore browser.

    The free version of ESXi loses two things. The ability to be managed by VirtualCenter and the ability to do write operations via SNMP. I don't see either one being a particularly big problem.

    Losing the ability to be managed via VirtualCenter isn't a big loss since you'd have a proper ESXi license if you have VirtualCenter.

    Losing the ability to do write operations via SNMP is a little annoying if you want to use RCLI but you can do everything via VI Client anyway. You just can't script it.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  2. SS -->
  3. Senior Member Jordus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    336

    Certifications
    MCP XP | MCTS: Vista, 7, Hyper-V, AD-DS,2008 Network Infra. | MCITP:EST
    #27
    Quote Originally Posted by astorrs View Post
    Actually that's not true. The free version of Hyper-V server is also limited to:

    - 16 logical CPUs
    - 32GB of physical RAM

    The current free version of ESXi is "limited" to:
    - 64 logical CPUs
    - 1TB of physical RAM

    Now R2 will likely do away with all those limits on the free version of Hyper-V, but the reason for that is the limited adoption (does anyone actually know of a single user of the free version of Hyper-V?) and Microsoft's need to break into the market further.
    I know more people using the free version of Hyper-V than i do that have 1TB of RAM in a server

    I like playing Devils Advocate, its fun and often times a good learning experience.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  4. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    I know more people using the free version of Hyper-V than i do that have 1TB of RAM in a server

    I like playing Devils Advocate, its fun and often times a good learning experience.
    My point is the 32GB limit is pretty strict especially given that Hyper-V has no memory overcommitment technologies. Assuming 16 logical CPUs in the host and only 2GB of RAM is assigned to each VM you are limited to 16 VMs per host. That's not great when compared to what you could achieve by using the free version of ESXi (same 16 logical CPUs with a conservative estimate of 3 VMs per core = 48 VMs each could have 2GB of memory for a total of 96GB). To achieve the same scale with free Hyper-V you would need to buy 2 additional servers...
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  5. Senior Member Jordus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    336

    Certifications
    MCP XP | MCTS: Vista, 7, Hyper-V, AD-DS,2008 Network Infra. | MCITP:EST
    #29
    Quote Originally Posted by astorrs View Post
    My point is the 32GB limit is pretty strict especially given that Hyper-V has no memory overcommitment technologies. Assuming 16 logical CPUs in the host and only 2GB of RAM is assigned to each VM you are limited to 16 VMs per host. That's not great when compared to what you could achieve by using the free version of ESXi (same 16 logical CPUs with a conservative estimate of 3 VMs per core = 48 VMs each could have 2GB of memory for a total of 96GB). To achieve the same scale with free Hyper-V you would need to buy 2 additional servers...

    Or you could look at it as the cost of a server with the capability and amount of ram at 96GB would be about the same cost as 2 servers with 32 GB ram.

    Granted, youd still be at 32 VMs with Hyper-V but you atleast wouldnt be running a single point of failure.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  6. was here.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,504
    #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Or you could look at it as the cost of a server with the capability and amount of ram at 96GB would be about the same cost as 2 servers with 32 GB ram.
    A 32GB limit is a feature now?
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  7. was here.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,504
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Or you could look at it as the cost of a server with the capability and amount of ram at 96GB would be about the same cost as 2 servers with 32 GB ram.
    It'd be 3x 32GB server not 2x.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  8. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Granted, youd still be at 32 VMs with Hyper-V but you at least wouldnt be running a single point of failure.
    OMG. Don't even get me started on single points of failure with Hyper-V.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  9. Senior Member Jordus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    336

    Certifications
    MCP XP | MCTS: Vista, 7, Hyper-V, AD-DS,2008 Network Infra. | MCITP:EST
    #33
    Quote Originally Posted by tiersten View Post
    A 32GB limit is a feature now?
    Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote


    Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  10. Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    12,308
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote
    You were making it sound advantageous and beneficial. He rephrased what you said to demonstrate the absurdity of that logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.
    I must be reading a different thread. He has consistently backed up his arguments with detailed and accurate information.

    (He also hasn't had to resort to insults)
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  11. was here.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,504
    #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Yeah cause i used the word feature in that quote
    You said that 2x32GB Hyper-V servers would be better than 1x96GB ESXi server because it'd be equivalent in price and performance with the added bonus that there isn't a single hardware point of failure.

    Unless you're only running 16 VMs on your 2x32GB Hyper-V cluster then you don't have sufficient capacity to handle failover should 1 of your servers die. If you're only running 16 VMs then your ESXi box wouldn't need 96GB (well 64GB) in the first place and it'd work fine with one of your 32GB servers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    Atleast astorrs can provide decent arguments...you are grasping at straws my friend.
    I've clearly stated what VirtualCenter does and what the free version ESXi of does/doesn't have. I don't see how I'm grasping at straws by telling you what ESXi can do.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  12. Certification Invigilator Forum Admin JDMurray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Posts
    10,596
    Blog Entries
    50

    Certifications
    GSEC, EnCE, CISSP, SSCP, CEH (ANSI), CASP, CCNA, CCENT, CWSP, CWNA, CWTS, Security+, Server+, Network+, A+, DHTI+, PDI+, MSIT InfoSec
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    ESX Server has a lot of features, some of which are gone if you DONT purchase their hypervisor manager software.
    "Gone" is not the correct word. The basic functionality of ESX/i is extended by VirtualCenter and vSphere. If you don't by VirtualCenter or vSphere then you don't get the extended features for managing ESX/i (for example, cloning and syspreping VMs).

    What you need to compare are the basic feature sets offered by ESX/i and Hypervisor Server 2008 and determine which one has the best set of features for free. Comparing ESX/i to Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V is apples-and-oranges; they are not used to solve the same problems.
    Moderator of the InfoSec, CWNP, IT Jobs, Virtualization, Java, and Microsoft Developers forums at www.techexams.net
    --
    Blog: www.techexams.net/blogs/jdmurray
    LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdmurray
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/jdmurray
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  13. Senior Member Jordus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    336

    Certifications
    MCP XP | MCTS: Vista, 7, Hyper-V, AD-DS,2008 Network Infra. | MCITP:EST
    #37
    If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

    BTW i havnt resorted to insults either. But i will say that twisting words is no way to win an argument, unless maybe you are a lawyer.

    Im just playing devils advocate for fun here. The only true issue i have with VMware is their choice of pricing and prereqs for their certifications.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  14. Certification Invigilator Forum Admin JDMurray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Posts
    10,596
    Blog Entries
    50

    Certifications
    GSEC, EnCE, CISSP, SSCP, CEH (ANSI), CASP, CCNA, CCENT, CWSP, CWNA, CWTS, Security+, Server+, Network+, A+, DHTI+, PDI+, MSIT InfoSec
    #38
    Quote Originally Posted by tiersten View Post
    The free version of ESXi loses two things. The ability to be managed by VirtualCenter and the ability to do write operations via SNMP. I don't see either one being a particularly big problem.

    Losing the ability to be managed via VirtualCenter isn't a big loss since you'd have a proper ESXi license if you have VirtualCenter.

    Losing the ability to do write operations via SNMP is a little annoying if you want to use RCLI but you can do everything via VI Client anyway. You just can't script it.
    Don't forget that read/write access to some of the calls in the VirtualCenter API is also lost.

    And all of these features are lost only after the 60-day eval period in ESXi expires. (Remember the API access bug in Update 3.)
    Moderator of the InfoSec, CWNP, IT Jobs, Virtualization, Java, and Microsoft Developers forums at www.techexams.net
    --
    Blog: www.techexams.net/blogs/jdmurray
    LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdmurray
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/jdmurray
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  15. Certification Invigilator Forum Admin JDMurray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Posts
    10,596
    Blog Entries
    50

    Certifications
    GSEC, EnCE, CISSP, SSCP, CEH (ANSI), CASP, CCNA, CCENT, CWSP, CWNA, CWTS, Security+, Server+, Network+, A+, DHTI+, PDI+, MSIT InfoSec
    #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway
    I would. After spending the $$$$ for 96GB of RAM and the mobo to hold it, I'd need to economize by using as much free software as possible.
    Moderator of the InfoSec, CWNP, IT Jobs, Virtualization, Java, and Microsoft Developers forums at www.techexams.net
    --
    Blog: www.techexams.net/blogs/jdmurray
    LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdmurray
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/jdmurray
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  16. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway

    BTW i havnt resorted to insults either. But i will say that twisting words is no way to win an argument, unless maybe you are a lawyer.

    Im just playing devils advocate for fun here. The only true issue i have with VMware is their choice of pricing and prereqs for their certifications.
    A basic Dell PowerEdge R610 server can scale to 96GB of RAM and those can be had for under $2500 base. Servers geared at virtualization can usually scale to 128-256GB of RAM these days (some even higher).

    I think sometimes your later comments have turned somewhat personal and that was the problem.

    What's wrong with their pricing? Sometimes I don't agree with specific aspects of it (like the Enterprise>Enterprise Plus fiasco) but overall I think it's logical and does provide value - and after all pricing is mostly determined by market demand/tolerance.

    Lots of vendors have pre-reqs for their certs (and more are actually moving towards required courses). Personally I'd rather they force people to take a course and have the cert remain somewhat more unique these days (and more in demand as a result) than have a flood of brain dumpers and paper certs devalue my certification.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  17. Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    12,308
    #41
    Quote Originally Posted by astorrs View Post
    Lots of vendors have pre-reqs for their certs (and more are actually moving towards required courses). Personally I'd rather they force people to take a course and have the cert remain somewhat more unique these days (and more in demand as a result) than have a flood of brain dumpers and paper certs devalue my certification.
    While it can still be improved upon, I think what MS is doing is a good compromise; requiring a $3k course for every cert seems a bit extreme.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  18. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #42
    Quote Originally Posted by dynamik View Post
    While it can still be improved upon, I think what MS is doing is a good compromise; requiring a $3k course for every cert seems a bit extreme.
    VMware/Citrix are both moving in the same direction as well and once those exams methods filter down to those certs I would hope they drop the course requirement as well. In the meantime what I said stands (in my opinion of course).
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  19. Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,941

    Certifications
    MCITP: EA, EMA; MCSE 2000/2003: M; MCSE 2000: S; MCSA 2000/2003: S; MCTS: ISA 2006; VCP3/4
    #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordus View Post
    If someone can afford a box that supports and has 96GB of RAM then they probably wouldnt be using a free or even "free" hypervisor anyway
    Because HyperV can't do memory de-dup, you might need that much RAM compared to ESXi running the same VM's.

    Not to mention memory overcommit, as was mentioned before...

    HyperV can't do either, no matter how premium a package you buy in the software.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  20. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #44
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroPsycho View Post
    Because HyperV can't do memory de-dup, you might need that much RAM compared to ESXi running the same VM's.

    Not to mention memory overcommit, as was mentioned before....
    Yeah sorry, I always refer to the various memory overcommitment technologies together (transparent page sharing, vmmemctl aka memory balooning, and vmkswap).
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  21. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #45
    Just an FYI...

    Massimo posted an excellent comparison of the different server virtualization solutions on his blog today. Once you get past the formatting the data is quite complete.

    Virtual Infrastructure products: features comparison
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  22. Self-Described Huguenot blargoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,088

    Certifications
    VCAP5-DCA; VCP 3/4/5/6 (DCV); EMCSA:CLARiiON; Linux+; MCSE:M 2000/2003; MCSE:S 2000/2003; MCTS:Exch2007; Security+; A+; CCNA (expired)
    #46
    I think when it comes down to it, HyperV will have a huge advantage with shops that are new to virtualization, have smaller budgets, less skilled IT staff, and/or are 100% Microsoft shops. The features included even in the free edition will be enough a lot of the time. It will be more than a capable solution in any of those cases. I can see why anyone from that perspective would balk at the price of vCenter and ESX.
    Last edited by blargoe; 05-26-2009 at 01:52 PM.
    IT guy since 12/00

    Recent: 3/22/2017 - Passed Microsoft 70-412; 2/11/2017 - Completed VCP6-DCV (passed 2V0-621)
    Working on: MCSA 2012 upgrade from 2003 (to heck with 2008!!), more Linux, AWS Solution Architect (Associate)
    Thinking about: VCP6-CMA, MCSA 2016, Python, VCAP6-DCD (for completing VCIX)
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  23. Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,941

    Certifications
    MCITP: EA, EMA; MCSE 2000/2003: M; MCSE 2000: S; MCSA 2000/2003: S; MCTS: ISA 2006; VCP3/4
    #47
    Quote Originally Posted by blargoe View Post
    I think when it comes down to it, HyperV will have a huge advantage with shops that are new to virtualization, have smaller budgets, less skilled IT staff, and/or are 100% Microsoft shops. The features included even in the free edition will be enough a lot of the time. It will be more than a capable solution in any of those cases. I can see why anyone from that perspective would balk at the price of vCenter and ESX.
    Don't get me wrong, VMware wouldn't have free solutions like VMware Server or ESXi free edition if it weren't for Microsoft releasing Virtual Server 2005 and now Hyper-V for free.

    People could in that perception balk at VMware, but it's out of ignorance, and exactly what Microsoft is trying to spin. The reality though is nevertheless that Hyper-V with SCVMM isn't anymore free than ESXi with Virtual Center. Compare Hyper-V to ESXi free edition if you're looking for a free solution. If you want to pay more for ease of management, compare Hyper-V with SCVMM to ESXi with Virtual Center. Is VMware more costly in that scenario from a software licensing perspective? Absolutely. But the same orgs who are 100% Microsoft shops didn't opt for it over Linux because Microsoft is the cheaper solution from a licensing perspective, either.

    I guess my point is if orgs choose Microsoft Hyper-V over ESXi because there's a perception that ESXi isn't free, or it's ridiculously less capable than Hyper-V in the free edition without actually looking at which solution fits them better objectively, then just come out and say you're going with it because it's Microsoft.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  24. Drops by now and again astorrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    3,141

    Certifications
    I have numerous certs from VMware, Citrix, Microsoft, EMC, Nimble Storage, Palo Alto Networks and more...
    #48
    The new vSphere Essentials and Essentials Plus (inc. HA and backups) bundles for SMBs are really competitive at $995 and $3500 respectively for 3 dual proc servers and vCenter. In fact vSphere Essentials at $995 for those 3 servers is a steal when you consider the centralized management and higher density you get with ESX over Hyper-V. The only challenge is shared storage which is still a stumbling block for most SMBs. Once HP or Dell or someone markets a solution like LeftHand at SMBs where the servers use local storage and replicate it between themselves you could come up with a fantastic option for smaller installations (up to 30-40 VMs say).
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  25. Senior Member Jordus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    336

    Certifications
    MCP XP | MCTS: Vista, 7, Hyper-V, AD-DS,2008 Network Infra. | MCITP:EST
    #49
    Its pretty wrong of you guys to assume that one would only choose hyper-V because the one making the choices is stupid/ignorant.

    We chose to use Hyper-V at work because Microsoft offers HUGE price cuts for public sector, VMware just wouldnt come close to matching this. And in this sector it all comes down to what you can get for the money.

    Is vmware the better virtulization solution? No doubt. But sadly that isnt the only factor that goes into deciding on somethings use.

    We can get copies of Server 2008 DC for 250$ (with hyperv) or the free hyperv server, and the ENTIRE SC suite for around 1200$.

    So perhaps you can see the justification here.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

  26. Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,941

    Certifications
    MCITP: EA, EMA; MCSE 2000/2003: M; MCSE 2000: S; MCSA 2000/2003: S; MCTS: ISA 2006; VCP3/4
    #50
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroPsycho View Post
    I guess my point is if orgs choose Microsoft Hyper-V over ESXi because there's a perception that ESXi isn't free, or it's ridiculously less capable than Hyper-V in the free edition without actually looking at which solution fits them better objectively, then just come out and say you're going with it because it's Microsoft.
    Tell me where that says if you go with Hyper-V, you in every case did it out of ignorance.

    And I see your justification. My argument was never that you shouldn't have gone with Hyper-V. It was the argument you made about ESXi Free Edition being ridiculously crippled to the point it's not competitive with standalone Hyper-V.
    Last edited by HeroPsycho; 05-27-2009 at 10:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote Quote  

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Social Networking & Bookmarks