Naturally, an article titled “Why would you not choose Microsoft Virtual Server…?†is going to grab my attention. Microsoft Virtual Server is a decent enough product in the hosted virtualization space, but certainly doesn’t compete with VMware ESX Server or other solutions based on a Type 1 bare metal hypervisor.
Apparently, this image sums up the argument against VMware Infrastructure 3 and for Microsoft Virtual Server. Go look at the image, then come back and finish reading this article.
OK, done now? Good. Let’s take a closer look at the information presented in this article:
- On the line listed “Migration,†there’s a checkmark in the column for the Microsoft solution. Since Microsoft’s solution—today in the form of Virtual Server, late next year in the form of Hyper-V—lacks any form of live migration (and you can’t count “Quick Migrationâ€), this table must be referring to cold migrations. That being the case, then you don’t need the extra charges listed in the first column.
- If that is not the case and we are referring to live migration functionality, then the checkmark needs to be removed from Microsoft’s column. And, I would ask you this question: how much is it worth to be able to move a workload from one physical host to another physical host during the midst of the workday with no interruption in service?
- Microsoft’s solution lacks any form of multi-chassis dynamic resource management, so that line must be referring to in-chassis resource management. All versions of VMware products, from VMware Server to VMware Workstation to VMware Fusion to VMware Infrastructure 3, have resource management abilities. On the other hand, if we are referring to the ability to dynamically distribute workloads across multiple physical hosts, then the checkmark in Microsoft’s column must be removed. Microsoft’s solution doesn’t have that ability. How do you quantify the ability to have all your workloads distributed evenly across the physical hosts—dynamically?
- What about the things that aren’t listed on this table, like transparent page sharing? Or some of the features in VI3 3.5 like Distributed Power Management (DPM)? How do you quantify the value of these types of features?
Don’t get me wrong, Microsoft Virtual Server is a decent solution at a great price—free, last time I checked. Of course, VMware Server is also a free hosted virtualization product. But as I’ve said a million times already, you can’t compare Virtual Server and ESX Server. They are two different classes of products, with different feature sets and intended at different markets. When Hyper-V finally makes its debut late next year, then we can really discuss the merits of Microsoft’s hypervisor-based solution against the other hypervisor-based solutions, including VMware, that are available on the market.
Until then, articles such as this one are, in my humble opinion, useless.
Tags: ESX, Microsoft, Virtualization, VMware
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/12/11/ok-i-had-to-comment-on-this/trackback/
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:25 pm
ron terren
scott,
did you see esx 3.5 was released today?
Ron
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:30 pm
slowe
Ron,
Yep, I knew about it. But thanks for asking anyway! I plan to discuss the new features in VI3 3.5 as soon as I get a chance, but it probably won’t be until after the Christmas holidays.
Speaking of holidays, I hope you have a very Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:38 pm
ron terren
you too, and thanks for all your work! you make my work easier
Cant wait for a solution to Centos and AD.
Thanks,
Ron
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 11:42 pm
stu
To be fair, although the title refers to Virtual Server, the body actually refers to Windows Server Hyper-V, so the comparison is a little different - except as you point out Hyper-V isn’t actually shipping.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Mike La Spina
I agree Scott VI3 does not currently compare. VMware far exceeds MS Virtual Server on the OS Compatibilty, virtualization type, management and feature side. Microsoft is a strong contender and is putting serious effort into virtualization but currently lack’s the blings needed to attract many of us senior IT pro’s to its product offering. Even still VMware will need to keep running hard in order to keep ahead in this fast paced race.
Merry Christmas to all.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 7:13 am
slowe
Stu,
You are correct; however, the comparison isn’t too far different–Hyper-V still lacks live migration and the ability to dynamically distribute workloads across multiple physical systems (the equivalent of VMware DRS). And, again, Hyper-V won’t ship until 180 days after Windows Server 2008.
Mike,
I agree that VMware absolutely NEEDS to stay on its toes, or the behemoth that is Microsoft will run over them. The release of VI3 3.5 yesterday will help, but VMware can’t get cocky. Let’s hope they keep it together.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 10:32 am
Mike Robinson
I have 2 basic comments here:
1) I really like Microsoft and I’m familiar with their vaporware-ish tactics (and everyone elses too!). But to have such a comparison with an existing product vs one thats not here for at least another 6 months and in such a slanted method is, in my opinion, worthless - as you point out.
I really can’t offer any significant comparison of vmware to a product that I really have no way of using/touching/seeing at this point.
2) I’m a consultant and I do a lot of vmware and Microsoft stuff. I’m *SO TIRED* of hearing customers complain about the “cost of vmware” even when they agree it saves them money and offers more capabilities than they could ever have with phyiscal hardware. I’m not suggesting one should overpay for anything, but this business of wanting vmware to give away the world just has to stop. There’s really no basis other than “because I want to pay less.”
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Nick Triantos
Without the shadow of doubt VMware today has the most complete offering out there. However, I’ve met with several customers the past 2 weeks that have started seriously considering Virtual Iron. The issue? Cost. When the VirtualIron Rep says to a CIO “I can do 95% of what VMware does today at a fraction of the cost” you bet he’ll listen. Lets assume that VirtualIron or Xen offers 90% of the functionality ESX server does. Is paying 50% more for 10% more functionality justified?
I’ve started playing around with VI a little while back. What you will find is that these guys are NOT far behind VMware.
LiveRecovery - VMware HA
LiveCapacity/LiveMaintenance - DRS
LiveSnapshot (4.2 Release)
LiveMigration - VMotion
LiveConcert (Platespin) - Ability to migrate workloads (P2V - V2V) across physical and Virtual Machines
LiveProvisioning - ACPI support Hot plug CPU/ memory
RAW Disk support
Logical Disk in VHD format compatible with Hyper-V
5 VNICs per VM but No Vswitch support
Up to 8 CPUs per VM
Can Clone VMs
Virtualization Manager - VirtualCenter
So is it me or do I see this gap closing rather quickly?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm
slowe
Nick,
You’re not alone. I’ve been saying for a while that while VMware has the lead right now, they’re going to need to continue to innovate and drive value or the competitors are going to catch them. Your points about Virtual Iron are spot on–Xen-based competitors, of which there are several, are quickly gaining on VMware. And, of course, we can’t count out Microsoft.
If VMware wants to maintain their “top spot” status, they’re going to need to execute quickly and perfectly, because a misstep could cost them the lead.
No pressure, VMware!
Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 7:15 am
MikeD
Just a couple of points:
- Dynamic Resource Allocation is comparing Intelligent Placement from Microsoft to DRS from VMware. DRS moves workloads around live to meet SLAs. Intelligent Placement helps you decide what box to put a VM on ONLY AT CREATION. There’s nothing dynamic about Intelligent Placement. That checkmark should go away.
- Migration as you said should go away in the Microsoft column. It’s referring to Quick Migration which means downtime and disconnections for any stateful connection. That’s NOT live migration or VMotion.
- High Availability checkmark can stay but you have to know that you need to manually setup clustering services and the quick migration hack in order to make it work. Anytime you add a VM you need to setup the clustering stuff for that VM. With VMware HA, you just checkmark a box and you’re done. Really not the same.
- The management agents were written without support. With support they are $1,290. Of course everything else was displayed without support so that’s fair.
- There is no cost for the management servers except for the cost of the SQL servers for the back end. If you want all of the components of Systems Center to get as close as possible to Virtual Center then you’ll need 4 separate SQL servers. You’ll also need a total of 8 (yes, eight) physical servers to deploy all of the components on. Compare that cost to just 1 server for Virtual Center and you see the gapping whole they’re not telling you about.
And yes, all of this is leaving out all of the checkmarks they don’t have that we could show you. Yes, I work for VMware and just want to try and set the record straight before you end up spending 2 - 3 X the cost of the competitor’s solution.