Comments on: Leaving ESX for Virtual Server? http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/ The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:49:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32749 slowe Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:07:10 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32749 Patrick, Agreed--customers will and should choose the virtualization solution that works best for their environment and their situation. Patrick,

Agreed–customers will and should choose the virtualization solution that works best for their environment and their situation.

]]> By: Patrick http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32748 Patrick Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:06:07 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32748 Scott - I'm in complete agreement with the 2nd to last paragraph of your blog post. And I'm not questioning VMware's installed base - their license revenue is now public information and speaks for itself. I wanted to provide examples of "important criteria" to two MS customers. The eval/selection criteria is often times much broader than technology or features, though technology/features tend to be most heavily weighted. In the end, there's a big virtualization market out there for customers, to choose amongst server virtualization, OS virtualization, application virtualization, presentation virtualization, storage, etc. Customers will choose what works best for their situation. Scott - I’m in complete agreement with the 2nd to last paragraph of your blog post. And I’m not questioning VMware’s installed base - their license revenue is now public information and speaks for itself. I wanted to provide examples of “important criteria” to two MS customers. The eval/selection criteria is often times much broader than technology or features, though technology/features tend to be most heavily weighted. In the end, there’s a big virtualization market out there for customers, to choose amongst server virtualization, OS virtualization, application virtualization, presentation virtualization, storage, etc. Customers will choose what works best for their situation.

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32741 slowe Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:49:50 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32741 Patrick, In all honesty, would a Microsoft employee such as yourself be willing to admit that ESX Server has been found as the right choice by many organizations? Over Virtual Server? If you go back and read this posting, and read many of the comments, many of us pointed out that Virtual Server (like VMware Server) has its place, and it will be the right choice for some organizations. However, ESX Server (instead of Virtual Server or VMware Server) will be the right choice for many organizations. It is my personal opinion (an opinion that is apparently shared by many and backed up by numerous real-world implementations) that ESX Server offers a more robust, enterprise-class feature set that precludes direct comparison with Virtual Server. There is no live migration (nor will there be in WSV--only "quick migration," which still involves downtime) and there is no equivalent to VMware Distributed Resource Scheduling (DRS) to help spread workloads evenly across all available physical hosts. For many organizations, the (relatively) steep learning curve for ESX Server and VirtualCenter is outweighed by the advanced functionality. For some organizations, as you've pointed out, Virtual Server's ease of use and similarity to existing Microsoft products and technologies will prove more beneficial. NOTE: Just for the record, as a former Microsoft-only engineer with NO significant Linux or UNIX experience, I didn't find the learning curve for ESX Server too steep to manage. Anyone with prior UNIX or Linux experience will find it even easier, and the Windows-only VirtualCenter Server simplifies the management of the product even more. Patrick,

In all honesty, would a Microsoft employee such as yourself be willing to admit that ESX Server has been found as the right choice by many organizations? Over Virtual Server?

If you go back and read this posting, and read many of the comments, many of us pointed out that Virtual Server (like VMware Server) has its place, and it will be the right choice for some organizations. However, ESX Server (instead of Virtual Server or VMware Server) will be the right choice for many organizations. It is my personal opinion (an opinion that is apparently shared by many and backed up by numerous real-world implementations) that ESX Server offers a more robust, enterprise-class feature set that precludes direct comparison with Virtual Server. There is no live migration (nor will there be in WSV–only “quick migration,” which still involves downtime) and there is no equivalent to VMware Distributed Resource Scheduling (DRS) to help spread workloads evenly across all available physical hosts.

For many organizations, the (relatively) steep learning curve for ESX Server and VirtualCenter is outweighed by the advanced functionality. For some organizations, as you’ve pointed out, Virtual Server’s ease of use and similarity to existing Microsoft products and technologies will prove more beneficial.

NOTE: Just for the record, as a former Microsoft-only engineer with NO significant Linux or UNIX experience, I didn’t find the learning curve for ESX Server too steep to manage. Anyone with prior UNIX or Linux experience will find it even easier, and the Windows-only VirtualCenter Server simplifies the management of the product even more.

]]> By: Patrick http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32740 Patrick Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:02:35 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32740 Admittedly I'm behind the time here, having just found Scott's blog. I'll be sure to visit more often. I work with MS and have been involved with Virtual Server since before it launched. Since then the reason for buying Virtual Server instead of other server virtualization software has changed primarily because the supply of virtualization software has changed. The selection criteria has lengthened compared to 3 years ago. Today customers's buying criteria includes: technology, integration, management (physical/virtual), skill set requirements, support, price, comprehensive roadmap, partners. For Land O'Lakes, they compared ESX Server and Virtual Server against a weighted criteria of reliability (5), performance/scalability (4), supportability (3), fault tolerance (2), product/support costs (1). In the end, Virtual Server had a score of 71, and ESX Server scored 68. They also concluded that (their words, not mine): ESX Server has more functionality and less overhead; but, Virtual Server is mature/works, the roadmap meets future needs, pricing is attractive, stated support policy is more robust, their technical staff is more familiar with Microsoft technologies, and they believe virtualization will become part of the OS. Citrix's IT dept had a similar evaluation. They looked at device support, features, roadmap, skills, implementation costs, operational savings, business relationship, management integration with current tools and support model. In the end, the cost to implement ESX Server was $331K+, whereas Virtual Server was $272K+. The two above examples come from a public presentation at Microsoft TechEd 2006 (June 06). More recent examples are here: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/search.aspx?ProTaxID=2273 Admittedly I’m behind the time here, having just found Scott’s blog. I’ll be sure to visit more often.

I work with MS and have been involved with Virtual Server since before it launched. Since then the reason for buying Virtual Server instead of other server virtualization software has changed primarily because the supply of virtualization software has changed. The selection criteria has lengthened compared to 3 years ago. Today customers’s buying criteria includes: technology, integration, management (physical/virtual), skill set requirements, support, price, comprehensive roadmap, partners.

For Land O’Lakes, they compared ESX Server and Virtual Server against a weighted criteria of reliability (5), performance/scalability (4), supportability (3), fault tolerance (2), product/support costs (1). In the end, Virtual Server had a score of 71, and ESX Server scored 68. They also concluded that (their words, not mine): ESX Server has more functionality and less overhead; but, Virtual Server is mature/works, the roadmap meets future needs, pricing is attractive, stated support policy is more robust, their technical staff is more familiar with Microsoft technologies, and they believe virtualization will become part of the OS.

Citrix’s IT dept had a similar evaluation. They looked at device support, features, roadmap, skills, implementation costs, operational savings, business relationship, management integration with current tools and support model. In the end, the cost to implement ESX Server was $331K+, whereas Virtual Server was $272K+.

The two above examples come from a public presentation at Microsoft TechEd 2006 (June 06). More recent examples are here: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/search.aspx?ProTaxID=2273

]]> By: Curtis http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32452 Curtis Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:41:33 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32452 I don't think that you can even compare Virtual Server to ESX. I agree that VMServer, Virtual Server, and ESX all have have different places in the grand scheme of things. VMServer or Virtual Server are great for small shops looking to dabble in virtualization. However I don't think that the article about switching from ESX to Virtual Server is even close to being accurate. Nothing holds a candle to ESX, it's not great for small shops that don't need high performance out of their virtualization, but anything else I cannot see why you choose anything over ESX. IMO the only thing that comes close to ESX is Virtual Iron. I don’t think that you can even compare Virtual Server to ESX. I agree that VMServer, Virtual Server, and ESX all have have different places in the grand scheme of things. VMServer or Virtual Server are great for small shops looking to dabble in virtualization. However I don’t think that the article about switching from ESX to Virtual Server is even close to being accurate. Nothing holds a candle to ESX, it’s not great for small shops that don’t need high performance out of their virtualization, but anything else I cannot see why you choose anything over ESX. IMO the only thing that comes close to ESX is Virtual Iron.

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32426 slowe Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:05:31 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32426 I agree, and that is the point I was trying to make. Virtual Server, VMware Server, and ESX Server all have their places within an overall virtualization solution--certain products are better in certain situations. My experience has shown that ESX Server fits well in many, many environments, but that is not to say it will fit equally well in ALL cases, and there are going to be situations where Virtual Server, VMware Server, or perhaps even Xen will make more sense. You can't go solely on cost, and you can't go solely on features. You have to look at the final solution and take all these factors into consideration. I agree, and that is the point I was trying to make. Virtual Server, VMware Server, and ESX Server all have their places within an overall virtualization solution–certain products are better in certain situations. My experience has shown that ESX Server fits well in many, many environments, but that is not to say it will fit equally well in ALL cases, and there are going to be situations where Virtual Server, VMware Server, or perhaps even Xen will make more sense. You can’t go solely on cost, and you can’t go solely on features. You have to look at the final solution and take all these factors into consideration.

]]> By: David Marshall http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32425 David Marshall Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:16:50 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32425 A few things... Virtual Server has its place. Is it everything to everyone? No. Will it suffice for many organizations? I think so. Is it as robust and feature rich as VMware ESX Server? No. Of course not. And I can't believe that anyone would say otherwise. I'm sure even Microsoft would own up to that, after all, that's why they are working on Windows Server Virtualization. I have seen ESX Server PSOD, mostly because of hardware issues... but it has crashed on me for other reasons of heavy usage. Again, it crashes few and far between, but it certainly isn't bullet proof. VMware Server is free as well, and again, nowhere near the stability or resource allocation of ESX Server. Free... yes. I would also argue that it doesn't scale as well as Virtual Server either. If you are running a few virtual machines on a server, VMware Server is fine. When you start loading it up, the performance drops faster than the other two platforms. So it all comes back to what are you trying to do within your organization. Outside of cost, what are you hoping to accomplish with virtualization? A few things… Virtual Server has its place. Is it everything to everyone? No. Will it suffice for many organizations? I think so. Is it as robust and feature rich as VMware ESX Server? No. Of course not. And I can’t believe that anyone would say otherwise. I’m sure even Microsoft would own up to that, after all, that’s why they are working on Windows Server Virtualization.

I have seen ESX Server PSOD, mostly because of hardware issues… but it has crashed on me for other reasons of heavy usage. Again, it crashes few and far between, but it certainly isn’t bullet proof.

VMware Server is free as well, and again, nowhere near the stability or resource allocation of ESX Server. Free… yes. I would also argue that it doesn’t scale as well as Virtual Server either. If you are running a few virtual machines on a server, VMware Server is fine. When you start loading it up, the performance drops faster than the other two platforms.

So it all comes back to what are you trying to do within your organization. Outside of cost, what are you hoping to accomplish with virtualization?

]]> By: Denny http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32412 Denny Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:40:30 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32412 I wonder if they tried VMware Server. It is free and is much more functional than Virtual Server. I wonder if they tried VMware Server. It is free and is much more functional than Virtual Server.

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32411 slowe Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:55:26 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32411 The only PSODs I've seen have always been due to hardware failure. Definitely better track record than Windows! The only PSODs I’ve seen have always been due to hardware failure. Definitely better track record than Windows!

]]> By: VMzare http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32410 VMzare Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:46:35 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/06/15/leaving-esx-for-virtual-server/#comment-32410 I agree with you fully, I wouldn't even go further and compare these products. ESX is enterprize level product and It truly means Enterprize. Load,capacity and above all Stability. Above kind of innovation gone into GSX,ESX family will never let the product down. I've yet to see any ESX host PSOD because of VMKernel. I agree with you fully, I wouldn’t even go further and compare these products. ESX is enterprize level product and It truly means Enterprize. Load,capacity and above all Stability. Above kind of innovation gone into GSX,ESX family will never let the product down. I’ve yet to see any ESX host PSOD because of VMKernel.

]]>