StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2002
- 6,977
- 1,276
- 126
Go with ESXi. Hyper-V 2012 is a nice step up from 2008r2 (replica is useful) but IMO ESXi is just easier to manage and set up.
It is hard to show in a forum easily however here are a couple off the top of my head:
[assuming the network is the same here]
Creating an ESXi cluster:
Basically get vCenter up [1-4 hours based on skill], install ESXi [10 minutes or less most times], configure the network card IPs etc
Join the machines to vCenter.
Create cluster, add hosts off check list, click do it.
Windows:
Install Windows on all hosts [30 minutes maybe?], patch [potentially hours]
Install the system center part [technically optional but it is MS's version of vCenter and makes life a lot easier]
Use cluster MMC to create the server cluster following the instructions for HyperV.
Configure HyperV to use the Cluster
Basically I have thrown up a fully functional ESXi cluster in the sub 4 hours mark. Most cases it would be more than that to just patch everything up in Windows and then futz with the clustering, MPIO, getting hyperV to use it etc.
Another example for ESXi vs HyperV is Network configuration. Most of the configuration for ESXi is create a vswitch, "check the box to add another NIC." Where as Windows has by far more steps to create a NIC group.
Patching hosts in ESXi is typically a sub 10 minute operation. You can actually put a host in to maintenance mode, evacuate the entire machine of VM's via vmotion, drop the ESXi patch on the machine, exit maintenance mode and move VMs back on the machine by spending a total of about 3-5 minutes on the 'Wizard.' ESXi DRS rocks like that. The time spent varies based on the VM load (vMotion takes time) but the actual patch process is maybe 20 minutes. You can do all the configuration for the patch on the front end and walk away so even if it takes an hour to evacuate the server, 20 to patch, and an hour bring machines back in, you as the admin spent 5 minutes setting it up. Spend about 2 more minutes and you can patch the entire cluster in a staggered process. IE if you have 15 hosts, you can tell it to patch the hosts with a rule like "never have more than 2 machines offline for patching," select all 15 hosts and clicking go. The will evacuate and patch 2 at a time until all 15 are done, redistributing the load on their own the entire time.
In the Windows side, unless you have something like SCCM, you have to patch manually. I think hyperV did finally add auto evacuation though. Did they add in the load balancing part again?
If I had the time I would try and show some of the GUI as it is hard to explain in a post.
[assuming the network is the same here]
Creating an ESXi cluster:
Basically get vCenter up [1-4 hours based on skill], install ESXi [10 minutes or less most times], configure the network card IPs etc
Join the machines to vCenter.
Create cluster, add hosts off check list, click do it.
Windows:
Install Windows on all hosts [30 minutes maybe?], patch [potentially hours]
Install the system center part [technically optional but it is MS's version of vCenter and makes life a lot easier]
Use cluster MMC to create the server cluster following the instructions for HyperV.
Configure HyperV to use the Cluster
Basically I have thrown up a fully functional ESXi cluster in the sub 4 hours mark. Most cases it would be more than that to just patch everything up in Windows and then futz with the clustering, MPIO, getting hyperV to use it etc.
Another example for ESXi vs HyperV is Network configuration. Most of the configuration for ESXi is create a vswitch, "check the box to add another NIC." Where as Windows has by far more steps to create a NIC group.
Patching hosts in ESXi is typically a sub 10 minute operation. You can actually put a host in to maintenance mode, evacuate the entire machine of VM's via vmotion, drop the ESXi patch on the machine, exit maintenance mode and move VMs back on the machine by spending a total of about 3-5 minutes on the 'Wizard.' ESXi DRS rocks like that. The time spent varies based on the VM load (vMotion takes time) but the actual patch process is maybe 20 minutes. You can do all the configuration for the patch on the front end and walk away so even if it takes an hour to evacuate the server, 20 to patch, and an hour bring machines back in, you as the admin spent 5 minutes setting it up. Spend about 2 more minutes and you can patch the entire cluster in a staggered process. IE if you have 15 hosts, you can tell it to patch the hosts with a rule like "never have more than 2 machines offline for patching," select all 15 hosts and clicking go. The will evacuate and patch 2 at a time until all 15 are done, redistributing the load on their own the entire time.
In the Windows side, unless you have something like SCCM, you have to patch manually. I think hyperV did finally add auto evacuation though. Did they add in the load balancing part again?
If I had the time I would try and show some of the GUI as it is hard to explain in a post.
Read above, I gave a list of items that need to be done on HyperV that is not needed on ESX for setup and being able to remotely manage the host.
Currently on a 3 node Hyper-V 2008R2 cluster...moving to a 2012 cluster.
For our use (I work at a not-for-profit) the MS solution was vastly cheaper compared to VMware. They at the time (and perhaps still don't) offer discounted pricing.
Now with that said, and others have said, the big hurdle in clustering and hyper-v are NICs. In other words, the more the merrier and it does get somewhat convoluted setting them up. For example, there is one area to setup cluster traffic, another area for the live migration network, etc. But once you get used to it isn't real bad but could be 100 times more intuitive. You can probably vlan them all out and get by with a couple ports.
Haven't tested it yet but 2012 clusters apprently don't need a domain controller to get booted. As in, if you virtualize your DC's the cluster can start and then start the DCs.
For the most part I find it fairly robust...but would like to see a full-blown comparison in regards to performance. IOPs, network throughput to and from guests, etc.
For our use (I work at a not-for-profit) the MS solution was vastly cheaper compared to VMware. They at the time (and perhaps still don't) offer discounted pricing.
Now with that said, and others have said, the big hurdle in clustering and hyper-v are NICs. In other words, the more the merrier and it does get somewhat convoluted setting them up. For example, there is one area to setup cluster traffic, another area for the live migration network, etc. But once you get used to it isn't real bad but could be 100 times more intuitive. You can probably vlan them all out and get by with a couple ports.
Haven't tested it yet but 2012 clusters apprently don't need a domain controller to get booted. As in, if you virtualize your DC's the cluster can start and then start the DCs.
For the most part I find it fairly robust...but would like to see a full-blown comparison in regards to performance. IOPs, network throughput to and from guests, etc.
Clustering is a factor if you want the HA features.
MS cluster validation is fairly flexible. I will tell you though, if you you get all green checkmarks on the cluster test buy a lottery ticket.
MS cluster validation is fairly flexible. I will tell you though, if you you get all green checkmarks on the cluster test buy a lottery ticket.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter