Hyper-V vs ESXi

[dawks]

I currently run a server with Server 2003 R2 64bit install and Virtual PC 2005 SP2, which hosts a single Server 2003 R2 32bit instance where most of the action happens.

I'm looking at moving to Server 2008, and something more like a hypervisor with either Hyper-V or VMware ESXi.

My understanding with Hyper-V is that I need to install an instance of Server 2008 either Full or Core, then the Hyper-V role which will then allow me to configure and install other OS instances. But that initial install wont need to be running all the time, and the guest OS's are not reliant on the initial install to operate. True?

Next with VMware ESXi, my understanding is you install a small 32meg hypervisor, that will boot up and host guest OS's. Which of these would be a better option for us as an all Microsoft shop?

I think with Hyper-V I'd be able to copy the Virtual Server image of the OS we have running right now to the new install and just start it up. Will that work as well?

 

[RebateMonger]

The host Server 2008, running the Hyper-V role, runs all the time. Best practice is to install only the bare minimum of services and applications on it.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

yes Rebatemonger is right.

I'm pretty sure you can import the virtual server image to HyperV but i have never done it myself.
You'll probably be better off using hyperV but vmware does have it's advantages.

I just got System Center Manager for Server 2008 R2 and it's a very cool manager for HyperV hosts and guests. It has the ability to clone a physical machine and turn it into a VM!

 

[dawks]

I noticed theres a free downloadable version of Hyper-V Server 2008 R2. I'll probably go with that then.

Any word comments on Server 2008 R2 licensing for Virtualization? My understanding was, If you got a license for Server 2003, Standard, you could install the OS on the 'bare metal', then one install one Guest OS. With Enterprise you were allowed 4 (?) Guest OS's. How does this work in Server 2008? If I buy an Enterprise license with the intention of installing it in a Virtual Machine, do I only get one install of it?

Thanks

 

[RebateMonger]

My understanding was, If you got a license for Server 2003, Standard, you could install the OS on the 'bare metal', then one install one Guest OS. With Enterprise you were allowed 4 (?) Guest OS's. How does this work in Server 2008?

That's still how it works.

I haven't verified what's in this article, but it sounds pretty well researched and makes sense. See the section, "Windows Server Licensing on top of VMWare's ESX" for how licensing works if you are running ESX (or another hypervisor):

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...ise+virtual+licenses&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Basically, you assign your "physical Server 2008 license" to the physical machine, even though you aren't running it. This keeps you from installing it on another server. And you now have one (or four) virtual Server 2008 licenses, just like with Hyper-V.

 

[Nothinman]

Which of these would be a better option for us as an all Microsoft shop?

Depends on what you need. Hyper-V might be cheaper up front because of the included licenses, but VMware is still the virtualization leader and supports a lot of stuff that Hyper-V doesn't yet. Of course for most of them you're looking at paying for ESX and vCenter or whatever it's called.

I have very little faith in virtually all of MS' products so I'd be extra leery about running my entire infrastructure on their virtualization software.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Which of these would be a better option for us as an all Microsoft shop?

ESXi is faster, uses less resources in overhead, allocates resources more efficiently to virtual machines, is easier to manage, has better guest OS compatibility, and is just all around better. The ONLY advantage Hyper-V has over ESXi is broader hardware compatibility for the host.

 

[Genx87]

Hyper V is also quite a bit cheaper as it is included with Windows 08. If you only need to run a few machines without failover ect. Then Hyper V will work for you. If you need something more robust then look into VMware.

 

[yinan]

ESxi is far better if only for the fact that it supports over subscription. For example, if you want to run 3 VMs with 2GB each then the minimum amount of RAM your system needs is 6 GB, you will not be able to power on VMs without physical memory available to run the VM. With ESX you can oversubscribe, which can save a ton of money, expecially if people put in outrageous requests for server resources that they dont need.

 

[whoiswes]

ESX >>>>>>>>> Hyper-V

For corporate environments, anyway.

/VCP, have our entire domain virtualized.

 

[mvbighead]

Hyper V is also quite a bit cheaper as it is included with Windows 08. If you only need to run a few machines without failover ect. Then Hyper V will work for you. If you need something more robust then look into VMware.

ESXi is free. http://www.vmware.com/support/product-support/esxi/

At least for one license.

 

[Nothinman]

ESXi is free. http://www.vmware.com/support/product-support/esxi/

At least for one license.

Not that I'm advocating Hyper-V by any means, but that doesn't include a Windows Server license. With Windows Server you get a number of free VM licenses depending on the SKU.

 

[classy]

For a purpose like that I would use free ESXi 4 if you have an up to date server. I would assume your VM 2003 server is licensed so it won't be an issue. You can easily import a Microsoft VM using the free convertor.

http://www.vmware.com/products/converter/

If you could list your server hardware that you'll be using, it would be helpful.

 

[rudder]

The host Server 2008, running the Hyper-V role, runs all the time. Best practice is to install only the bare minimum of services and applications on it.

Core installation and manage remotely.

 

[stash]

Not that I'm advocating Hyper-V by any means, but that doesn't include a Windows Server license. With Windows Server you get a number of free VM licenses depending on the SKU.

You have to buy that either way, and the you get the licenses for VMs regardless of the virtualization technology.

 

[Nothinman]

You have to buy that either way, and the you get the licenses for VMs regardless of the virtualization technology.

Ah, so those extra licenses are valid for VMs inside of anything? I did not know that.

 

[dawks]

For a purpose like that I would use free ESXi 4 if you have an up to date server. I would assume your VM 2003 server is licensed so it won't be an issue. You can easily import a Microsoft VM using the free convertor.

http://www.vmware.com/products/converter/

If you could list your server hardware that you'll be using, it would be helpful.

Our box is a Dell Poweredge 2950, which is supported by ESXi. I put in Dell, and our CPU, and it listed the model we have.

Since I haven't had a chance to install either, how would I go about copying an existing VM into place with either?

If I install the free Hyper-V server, I'm assuming it formats the disks with NTFS, and gives you a command line. Would I then just do an x-copy or similar to move my VM's from a file share to the server? I know with some server roles, you can get a mmc program to remotely administer that role from another system. Is that possible with Hyper-V?

What does ESXi do? They probably use a linux file format of some sort? Same idea, just do a file copy? is there much of a GUI for ESXi?

Thanks for the help guys!

 

[dawks]

ESXi is free. http://www.vmware.com/support/product-support/esxi/

At least for one license.

Hyper-V is also free if you download the standalone core install.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=48359dd2-1c3d-4506-ae0a-232d0314ccf6

 

[imagoon]

Windows is simply licensed this way:

Platform is irrelevant (for licensing)

Standard: Assigned to a host then becomes a "virtual" (1) license.
Enterprise: assigned to a host then becomes 4 "Virtuals"
Datacenter: Purchased per processor but is unlimited instances per physical box.

One thing about hyper-V you have to be careful of is that the physical box license is not counted as part of the 4 virtuals as long as you do nothing but hyper-v with it. If you decide add "DNS" to the base machine while hosting 4 virtual enterprise systems, you violated your license.

I personally use Vmware, however hyper-v did work ok but was a bit slower overall. Both do physical 2 virtual. Buying Vmware essentials packages however tends to be cheap ($800) and allows vCenter and 3 dual processor servers which is excellent for small to medium business. It does not allow hot moves (vmotion) but there is other "essentials" packages that add more.

If your a big business your most likely not asking about this stuff however as Vmware's management and update / vm management is better at the moment.

FYI ESXi 4.0 on Dell PE R610's is rocking the casaba here. 64bit + VT = entire racks of 2850s moving to 2 boxes.

 

[MiniDoom]

ESX >>>>>>>>> Hyper-V

For corporate environments, anyway.

/VCP, have our entire domain virtualized.

This ^. it's really not even close. HyperV can be alright in a dev or staging environments but if it's production go ESX. To manage HyperV you"ll need VMM and SCCM. Getting those to work is a bitch. VMWare just works.

 

[Thor86]

This ^. it's really not even close. HyperV can be alright in a dev or staging environments but if it's production go ESX. To manage HyperV you"ll need VMM and SCCM. Getting those to work is a bitch. VMWare just works.

Not sure what you are basing these on. Managing Hyper-V via SCVMM R2 is excellent. As for ESX being faster, this is also relative.

We have done extensive testing with both ESX and Hyper-V in a test Production environment, with true Production loads, and by far, Hyper-V's performance was measured at approximately 500% better in comparison to a similar physical machines perf on a 4 to 1 consolidation ratio. ESX was only able to come to a 300% increase in performance for the same consolidation ratio.

 

[mvbighead]

Hyper-V is also free if you download the standalone core install.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=48359dd2-1c3d-4506-ae0a-232d0314ccf6

Not as far as I can tell:

System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Hyper-V Server 2008

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-452-_-Product

The above link is for Windows Server 2008, with Hyper-V.

ESXi is free. Go to their site, download the ISO, and get your License key, and you're all set.

The link you provided would be as if I were to say that Windows Server 2003 SP2 is free because I can download SP2... not exactly accurate, unless I am missing something.

 

[imagoon]

Not sure what you are basing these on. Managing Hyper-V via SCVMM R2 is excellent. As for ESX being faster, this is also relative.

We have done extensive testing with both ESX and Hyper-V in a test Production environment, with true Production loads, and by far, Hyper-V's performance was measured at approximately 500% better in comparison to a similar physical machines perf on a 4 to 1 consolidation ratio. ESX was only able to come to a 300% increase in performance for the same consolidation ratio.

I would be interested in your numbers because my tests don't replicate yours. I have had to run production @ 9:1 (one box reported a hardware failure so machines were moved off it to others) with issues only starting to appear due to RAM exhaustion at that point. I was over subscribed by a few gig at that point. If anything it only showed me that I need more RAM for failover.

In the test environment hyper-v didn't even want to let me start the machines.

Hyper-v has potential to be a great product, esp if MS puts the effort behind it. It will also force vmware to compete and innovate which should make it even more interesting.

This could be differences in the test environments I guess.

 

[RebateMonger]

As noted earlier, Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 is a free download. The link given above is correct and is a full install of "Hyper-V Server 2008 R2". You install it onto a bare computer and it provides Hyper-V. It's managed from a command line unless you manage it remotely from a Vista-or-higher PC running the Hyper-V Remote Management GUI.

That's different from installing Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V. That's a full-featured OS that includes Hyper-V and a virtual Windows Server license(s) and it's not free.

 

[classy]

Our box is a Dell Poweredge 2950, which is supported by ESXi. I put in Dell, and our CPU, and it listed the model we have.

Since I haven't had a chance to install either, how would I go about copying an existing VM into place with either?

If I install the free Hyper-V server, I'm assuming it formats the disks with NTFS, and gives you a command line. Would I then just do an x-copy or similar to move my VM's from a file share to the server? I know with some server roles, you can get a mmc program to remotely administer that role from another system. Is that possible with Hyper-V?

What does ESXi do? They probably use a linux file format of some sort? Same idea, just do a file copy? is there much of a GUI for ESXi?

Thanks for the help guys!

Since you'll be using a 2950, I would use ESXi. Hyper V is free as well, but ESXi management is easier. You can manage it from XP, Vista, or 7 because you download a client right from the host. You can't manage Hyper V from XP. The management client is robust as well. My guess is with hosting one or two VMs like you are doing, performance is a non issue of one vs the other. Vmware also has much better forums because it has been around longer. Much more readily available information on the net.

You can download and read the manuals and you should be up to speed in a few days like a pro. Updates also work well, but you have to shutdown the VMs. The new ESXi 4 provides the better performing drivers natively that many of us are used to adding after the fact. Once you install ESXi, configure it, and connect to the host and install the client you need to do nothing else. And as I posted before you can install the free convertor on the Virtual PC VM and it will convert the VM over to Vmware probably without issue. I have done a couple and had no issues.