While VMware was busy launching VMware Infrastructure 3 version 3.5, Microsoft was giving the virtualization industry an early Christmas present in the form of the first Hyper-V (formerly “Viridian†and “Windows Server Virtualizationâ€) beta. This beta was a bit of a surprise in that it was delivered slightly ahead of schedule; that in and of itself is a surprise given Microsoft’s track record with delivering products on time. Can anyone say “WinFS†or “Vistaâ€?
I applaud Jeff Woolsey and the Windows Server Virtualization team (their blog is here) for their efforts in delivering Hyper-V ahead of schedule. Well, they’re ahead of schedule with regard to the last proposed release date, anyway. Unfortunately, it appears that Hyper-V is off to a rocky start.
InfoWorld reviewed the Hyper-V beta back on December 19. Here’s a brief excerpt from the article:
I wasn’t disappointed — everything worked right out of the box. From there, I had the system ready to handle virtual machines in a matter of minutes. A few minutes later, I ran into problems.
I encourage you to read the full article. While the reviewer, Paul Venezia, has both good and bad things to say about the Hyper-V beta, he does reiterate that it is definitely a beta product. This is important to remember when discussing Hyper-V—while we can discuss the product’s rough edges, we also need to remember that the product isn’t finished yet.
The most telling comment about the Hyper-V beta from the InfoWorld article is this one:
From what I’ve seen, Microsoft’s Hyper-V is roughly analogous to VMware Server 1.0, although not as polished. It doesn’t appear to be a significant challenge to VMware’s Virtual Infrastructure and ESX Server products, and given the fact that VMware Server is free, runs on Linux and Windows, and is considerably more mature, it’s questionable how many infrastructures will benefit from using Hyper-V over VMware Server. Hyper-V is certainly behind the curve, but shows that Microsoft sees the need to be competitive in this space. Only time will tell whether Microsoft can catch up to the virtualization leaders, or be forced to settle for a secondary role.
This quote got picked up by John Troyer over at the VMTN Blog, who again reiterates Hyper-V’s beta status. I’m glad to see that John, at least, isn’t bashing Hyper-V. That’s good, because if past performance is any indication Microsoft starts out slow but ramps up quickly. VMware will want to stay vigilant to keep ahead of the 800-pound gorilla. Bashing the competition isn’t the best way to stay ahead of the competition.
If any readers have direct experience with the Hyper-V beta, please post your knowledge and thoughts in the comments below. Thanks!
Tags: HyperV, Microsoft, Virtualization
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2007/12/27/hyper-v-off-to-a-rocky-start/trackback/
Friday, December 28, 2007 at 7:41 am
Alastair Cunningham
I haven’t had a chance to play with Hyper-V yet, so I cannot comment with any authority on its maturity, but I would just like to point out that the “Early release” of Hyper-V is actually a bit of Microsoft spin.
Hyper-V was initially slated for release in the first half of 2007, then delayed to the second half of 2007, then delayed *again* to the start of 2008. So the product is only shipping early relative to its most recent delay. It’s still close to a year off the original shipping target. You can read more on The Register here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/14/beta_hyperv_microsoft/
Ok, maybe I’m being pedantic, but I personally think it’s a bit cheeky of Microsoft to claim an early release after 3 delays
Friday, December 28, 2007 at 10:59 pm
slowe
Alastair,
You are correct–I had neglected to consider the numerous delays that have plagued Hyper-V since its original announcement. Thanks for correcting me!
Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 4:44 pm
william bishop
Tried it, after the first hour or two, I didn’t even bother taking it in to test it on big iron at work(we are a large vmware shop)….rough around the edges doesn’t BEGIN to cover it. I wasn’t thrilled with vmware server 1.0, but whereas it had some idiosyncrasies, microsoft’s offering only contained issues. I would have thought with as much time as they have had to catch up, they would be further along. Let’s face it, Microsoft prices the competition out of existence, and while ESX is certainly worth the price, you know that as soon as they are able, microsoft will give you the same product at 25% cost(until they competition dies, then it’s literally a price double overnight).
Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 11:18 pm
slowe
Good to hear from you again, William. Thanks for sharing your experience with the Hyper-V beta.
Microsoft’s past performance would certainly bear witness to their potential future actions. Let’s hope for the best (and plan for the worst!).
Take care!
Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 12:24 am
John Troyer
I don’t speak for VMware, but my impression is that we’re still running hard and appropriately diligent about the competition. However, I’m personally a little tired of stories in the press setting up artificial horse races with horses that aren’t even on the same lap. (Note: I’m talking in general here, not specificially about MS. )
Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 1:56 am
slowe
John,
I can certainly understand your position. VMware single handedly created the x86 virtualization market, without a doubt, and now the press (and bloggers such as myself) are constantly comparing VMware’s tried and proven technologies against unproven (and in some cases unreleased) products like Xen and Hyper-V.
However, I would contend that such comparisons are an inescapable byproduct of being in the #1 position. VMware established a standard for what should be expected in an x86 virtualization product, and it’s only natural that everyone else has to be compared against VMware. What other frame of reference is there? There isn’t one.
Further, looking back on the rise and fall of various technologies and technology vendors, it’s fully expected that a company such as VMware would be subjected to such intense scrutiny and criticism, lest they commit the same mistakes that toppled such giants as IBM.
Sorry, John–whether VMware continues to “run hard” and “stay diligent” or slacks off and gets complacent, either way the press, the blogosphere, and the competition will continue to establish and promote these artificial horse races and VMware will continue to be in the limelight. It’s the curse of fame.
Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 6:27 am
Mark Wilson
“Microsoft’s Hyper-V is roughly analogous to VMware Server 1.0″. I think not!
I’ll agree that Hyper-V is a v1.0 product (or will be when it comes out of beta) and has some considerable catching up to meet ESX Server but it’s nothing like VMware Server 1.0 (Virtual Server was). For a start, Hyper-V has a totally different arhitecture (practically identical to the one used by Xen).
Secondly, the next version of System Center Virtual Machine Manager trumps Virtual Center because it won’t matter whay hypervisor your VMs are running on, you’ll be able to manage them all as a single virtual infrastructure.
VMware have some great products - and an enviable market position, but competition is good for driving innovation, and even second place in a market growing as fast as the x86 virtualisation space will be good for Microsoft. With only around 5% of servers and 1% of desktops virtualised right now x86 virtualisation is only just getting going and the market could change considerably over the next couple of years.
Expect to see Hyper-V take 30% of the x86 virtualisation space initially (with various VMware products taking around 60% and the rest mopping up what’s left). VMware are market leaders and as long as they continue to innovate then it will take some time before they are toppled from that perch. Where Microsoft et al lack (perceived) maturity in the market (I’m told this is their 10th virtualisation product), they will more than make up for it as virtualisation becomes a core part of an ecosystem where they are already dominant.
(BTW, I liked the horse racing analogy)
Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm
slowe
Mark,
From an architectural perspective, you are absolutely correct–VMware Server and Hyper-V are dramatically different. From an end user’s perspective with regards to functionality, though, the two aren’t too far apart. (At least, from what I’ve heard–I’ve been too busy to really put Hyper-V through its paces.)
That being said, competition is–generally speaking–a good thing, so I’m glad to see Microsoft, Citrix, and Virtual Iron pressing on VMware and making the market leader stay on target.