Virtulisation.

[classy]

Err.... the entire reason the school is replacing the system is because they ran the numbers, and found that the VMware solution was more than 4x more expensive than the equivalent Microsoft solution. The price difference is somewhat exaggerated because the school receives a discount on Microsoft licensing, but nevertheless, the cost difference is very real.



I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from.

According to Microsoft's site, the retail price of SCVMM is $869 per host. For VDI implementations, Microsoft offers a client license per VM as an alternative that costs $40.

To provide some perspective, a 12-core vSphere Advanced license will set you back $2,806, and a 10-seat VMware View pack will cost you $1815, or $181.50 per seat.

Bit of a difference, isn't it :awe:



I have, actually. VMware vSphere Advanced is $1,937 more per server. According to HP's site, $1,937 will get me 32GB of PC3-10600R memory.

VMware ESXi is certainly more efficient with its memory usage, but I think it's safe to say that an additional 32GB of RAM will more than make up for that.

In addition, licensing for Microsoft RDS also covers connections to a session host, which will be far more memory-efficient than a hypervisor running a bunch of desktop VMs.



VMware is in EXACTLY the same position Novell was. They both had an awesome product that is years ahead of the competition, and they both built an entire ecosystem around that product. Microsoft jumped into Novell's market by producing a much cheaper alternative that version over version gradually narrowed the functionality gap, until Novell customers simply couldn't justify the cost difference and began migrating to Microsoft's platform.

The virtualization world is going down that exact same path. Microsoft may not be able to meet the needs of a substantial portion of VMware's enterprise customer base, but they're capturing mid-market customers (who will likely stay with Microsoft as they grow), and Hyper-V is continually gaining features that previously kept customers on VMware. Unless VMware does something substantial (or substantially lowers their prices), I can see them being cornered into servicing a niche market that's not large enough to sustain the level of product development needed to compete in the greater virtualization market, just as Novell was.



Both solutions will probably meet the OP's needs, but claiming that VMware is "going no where, ever" is, quite frankly, ignorant. Microsoft has beaten numerous competitors with superior technology by offering a less expensive product that was good enough for most of the market, and there's absolutely nothing special about VMware that prevents them from ever encountering such a fate.

Well I guess you got it all figured out then. I guess I better run out and invest in 3com switches, because surely they are going overtake Cisco, being so much cheaper. Hell I guess Microsoft is in serious trouble with Office, hell with Open Office is so much cheaper. Your cheaper theory doesn't hold water.

As for your VDI pricing your a little off. Its $2245 for Advanced license in vmware. To tie into a comparable Hyper-V features you'll probably need to purchase an Enterprise Version of Server 2008, which will probably be about $1500. So now we come to centralized. You need SCCM as you priced out to be $869. I'll take your word for it. For 3 hosts you can get away with $1500 for vcenter foundation. But to go above that you'll need to go up to full vcenter which is pretty expensive at $5K.

But that is unlimited for number of hosts. I don't know if additional costs are would be needed for SCCM for a certain number of hosts. Thats just for the base foundation. Is Vmware more expensive, yes. So much so its cost prohibitive, I would say in most situations, no. The extra costs for the Data Recovery in Vmware alone is worth it in a critical infrastructure. VMware may die out, but if they do it will well after you and I both dead and buried many decades from now.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Well I guess you got it all figured out then. I guess I better run out and invest in 3com switches, because surely they are going overtake Cisco, being so much cheaper. Hell I guess Microsoft is in serious trouble with Office, hell with Open Office is so much cheaper. Your cheaper theory doesn't hold water.

3com and OpenOffice are poor examples because they are nowhere close to providing the functionality of Cisco and Microsoft Office products.

However, HP's ProCurve line is eating away at Cisco's market share, and Google is causing Microsoft some migraine headaches with their Google Apps.

As for your VDI pricing your a little off. Its $2245 for Advanced license in vmware. To tie into a comparable Hyper-V features you'll probably need to purchase an Enterprise Version of Server 2008, which will probably be about $1500.

Server 2008 comes with special VM licenses in addition to a main license. This allows an administrator to install Hyper-V without consuming the primary license. As long as the administrator installs Server 2008 VM's allowed as part of the main license (which will almost certainly be the case), Hyper-V is essentially free.

This is NOT the case with ESX. Not only do you have to pay for the licenses for your guest OS's, you also have to pay for the hypervisor.

So now we come to centralized. You need SCCM as you priced out to be $869. I'll take your word for it. For 3 hosts you can get away with $1500 for vcenter foundation. But to go above that you'll need to go up to full vcenter which is pretty expensive at $5K. But that is unlimited for number of hosts.

First of all, that's not true. Although the base vCenter license may technically allow for unlimited hosts, the per-host fee is built into the cost of the vSphere host license.

Second, Microsoft doesn't have a base license fee for SCVMM; it's licensed per host or per desktop VM (for VDI). So not only do you pay a much-higher per-host fee for ESXi as compared to Hyper-V, you also pay another fee that isn't present in Microsoft-land.

I don't know if additional costs are would be needed for SCCM for a certain number of hosts.

I gave the number for the enterprise-grade license. Microsoft offers a discounted license for install with five or fewer hosts.

Is Vmware more expensive, yes. So much so its cost prohibitive, I would say in most situations, no. The extra costs for the Data Recovery in Vmware alone is worth it in a critical infrastructure.

For the feature-set that Hyper-V covers, Microsoft's offerings are significantly less expensive. VMware has a lock on the market for features that Hyper-V doesn't offer yet (taking your word for it, data recover), but Microsoft is not exactly standing still. They will eventually build those features into Hyper-V, and unless VMware has other aces up their sleeve, there's going to be less and less reason to pay the premium for VMware's products.

VMware may die out, but if they do it will well after you and I both dead and buried many decades from now.

Lulz :awe:

VMware may not be going out of business anytime soon, but they can certainly be knocked off their throne. Microsoft has huge cash reserves, and they have sources of income from multiple markets. If Microsoft determines that VMware is a major threat to their core business, VMware will get knocked on its ass.

 

[classy]

If Microsoft determines that VMware is a major threat to their core business, VMware will get knocked on its ass.

I see, so the virtualization leader needs to cower away. By the way they continue to bring out better features. Now they have the best VDI client I have used View 4, even better than Zen's based on ica. You're whole argument is its cheaper. Not better, just cheaper. Thanks, but we all knew that on 5/11 when the thread got started.

 

[SolMiester]

We use both where I am at, and AMD isn't a bad way to go. However, Intel quite simply has a stronger name in the field. The reason I selected an AMD is that 1) It was Dell's "Suggested Virtualization Platform" and 2) They had 6-Core CPUs available at the time of purchase.

One thing I would suggest, however, is that you should focus on maximizing the number of cores you have available. The more you have, the better off you'll be. If two QUADs is what you can fit in your budget, that'll be good.

In addition, if you're not using a SAN, I would strongly suggest maximizing the number of disks you bring to the table. The higher the number of spindles you bring to the server should allow disk time to be optimal. And when you start throwing a bunch of VMs onto one physical host, you'll want to minimize your weaknesses. You'd be better off getting the disks straight away, and not messing with reconfiguring them down the road should disk speed be suboptimal.

Last but not least, it it would certainly be worth your time to investigate your networking requirements (especially if iSCSI is an option). Having multiple NICS can allow you to withstand the loss of a switch port, or a switch.

I realize I didn't exactly answer your question, but hope the other information was helpful.

Listen to this guy, every word exactly correct.....I would only use Raid 5 on 6 or more spindles, otherwise Raid 10......You should have a separate pNic for your service console, and at least 2 pNic's per 6-8 VM's...The biggest overhead is memory....as for Intel 380 v AMD 385, I would go with the new Nehalem Xeons...I big step up over E series

 

[theevilsharpie]

You're whole argument is its cheaper. Not better, just cheaper.

What you've completely missed in my argument is that for a very sizable portion of the market, cheaper IS better. That's a lesson Novell learned the hard way, and VMware could very well walk down that path.

 

[Ferzerp]

Cost is not always as cut and dry as licensing fees and maintenance agreements... Not in the slightest. If it were, then we would all be running linux on everything.

MS touts how Hyper-V is free. Well, it is free the same way VMware is free (with ESXi). If you want to manage it though, you're going to be subscribing to system center and that is not free.

 

[theevilsharpie]

MS touts how Hyper-V is free. Well, it is free the same way VMware is free (with ESXi). If you want to manage it though, you're going to be subscribing to system center and that is not free.

It is not free, but the cost is substantially less than VMware.

Cost is not always as cut and dry as licensing fees and maintenance agreements... Not in the slightest. If it were, then we would all be running linux on everything.

Windows and Linux is a poor comparison, because it's hard to replace one with the other easily.

A better comparison would be Linux and UNIX. In the early to mid-90s, if you needed an enterprise-grade server operating system that could actually run custom applications, you used UNIX. Be it Solaris, AIX, Tru64, HP-UX, IRIX, or on the low end, SCO OpenServer, you were running some sort of UNIX.

Linux changed that market dramatically. Linux was obviously less expensive, but as it matured and started becoming "good enough," the market flocked to it. Now, the only shops that are still moving forward with UNIX are shops that have very specialized needs. Vendors that didn't have much to offer outside of UNIX or supporting software/hardware, like SGI or SCO, didn't last long.

 

[mfenn]

Once again thanks for your support folks – just a few more questions…

OK, I’ve decided to put off buying the server until the G7 is widely available. Since the budget isn’t really much of an issue (except for SANS or similar). The 6 core Xeon look to be the way forward. How do I know if these are Nehalem? What are the product code numbers to look out for. P.s. Since I am going to wait this month or so, is there anything from AMD's roadmap that is a Xeon killer?

The hypervisor will be Windows Server 2008 R2 (Hyper-V 2.0) which I believe is getting good reviews from what I’ve heard and read so far. Should one consider investing in VMware or is Hyper-V nearly or as good? In addition, I will be using the standard Hyper-V tools unless Microsoft Virtual Machine Manager can bring any additional performance to the table?

I’m going to go ahead with RAID 10 so I’ll get the four 300GB disks 10k since you can’t get 15k apparently in that size…? Can one tell if there will be a bottleneck? Does anyone know of any advisory documents or pre-estimating tools available for storage subsystems?

Lastly, whilst reading all the posts it was mentioned that it is good practice to assign one core per VM and not more… Is this correct or did I just interpret it wrong? The reason I ask is two 6 core processors would mean 12 VM’s easily but surely that is too much load for one server?

Thanks in advance guys n girls.

WRT to the bold, let me quote Wikipedia

Windows Server 2008 guests and Windows HPC Server 2008 can be configured for 1-, 2-, or 4-way SMP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista VMs for 1- or 2-way SMP, and all other VMs as 1-way only.

So yes, if you are running Server 08 VMs, then you can do up to 4 cores per VM.

 

[mv2devnull]

Lastly, whilst reading all the posts it was mentioned that it is good practice to assign one core per VM and not more…

So yes, if you are running Server 08 VMs, then you can do up to 4 cores per VM.

(Emphasis by me.)

While MS EULA and technicalities make it possible for MS guest to use more than one core, that does not automatically mean that it is a "best practice".


For comparison about "can": with current KVM you can set "-smp 16", ie grant 16 cores to a guest. The MS guests obviously cannot use that many.

 

[dq]

Yep, I've decided to go with the new G7 380's giving those additional cores and architecture.

In any case on the Hypervisor fight... I’ve definitely been doing benchmarks and I too strongly believe Microsoft will be closing the gap with the feature focus approach. Live migration, etc. the other thing to be noted is with esxi server you lose the host system as such... With windows server you still get the host system for whatever reason even just to run a simple domain controller but yes, that uses resources that can be assigned elsewhere and ultimately reduces surface risks.

However, I've been using the desktop product of VMware and it completely tops Microsoft virtual PC... not to say they are in the same league for comparison but VMware has some solid code behind it.

We also use Citrix from 2004 and the connection is truly fantastic. Immediate reconnections and much quicker than RDP even with that age behind it.. I am not too sure how they’re virtualisation products are..?

remember - im not as talented as you folks...

 

[JFAMD]

There is room for both solutions. But to categorically state that one is better than the other ignores the reality that not every problem requires the same solution.

My point was that Novell lost the lead because they put their head in the sand and refused to accept that MSFT could make a competing product.

At the time they were right, but they sat back and didn't address the needs of the market, and MSFT took share over time by making their product better and closing the gap.

Classy's comments sound a lot like the netware folks that I used to work with.

I want both to suceed, but in order to do that, both need to address the needs of the market. I am not seeing that. VMware is perfectly positioned for the high end of the market, but that is not the whole market. MSFT is not positioned to the high end of the market, but positioned at the volume part of the market.

It will be an interesting couple of years.

 

[pjkenned]

The one thing Hyper-V needs to capture more of the lower end of the market is simply getting integration components easily installed in more open source OSes. New Microsoft OSes install very easily on Hyper-V, but installing FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, and even Linux is a bit of a pain currently (well getting them working is easy, getting things like the non-legacy adapters and SCSI controllers is another matter). If your hardware works with ESXi, VMWare is a lot more compelling solution for playing with miscellaneous VMs/ appliances.

 

[classy]

There is room for both solutions. But to categorically state that one is better than the other ignores the reality that not every problem requires the same solution.

My point was that Novell lost the lead because they put their head in the sand and refused to accept that MSFT could make a competing product.

At the time they were right, but they sat back and didn't address the needs of the market, and MSFT took share over time by making their product better and closing the gap.

Classy's comments sound a lot like the netware folks that I used to work with.

I want both to suceed, but in order to do that, both need to address the needs of the market. I am not seeing that. VMware is perfectly positioned for the high end of the market, but that is not the whole market. MSFT is not positioned to the high end of the market, but positioned at the volume part of the market.

It will be an interesting couple of years.

Dude you just continue to say stuff that is inaccurate or untrue. You're commenst are so stupid you sound like someone who has like 0 real world knowledge at all.

 

[mv2devnull]

ESR, RMS, and rhetorics ... :|

 

[JFAMD]

Dude you just continue to say stuff that is inaccurate or untrue. You're commenst are so stupid you sound like someone who has like 0 real world knowledge at all.

I have been in the server business almost 20 years. Used to compsurf drives for netware 2.X, wired building for ARCnet with RJ-11 and have seen more than my fair share of data centers and server deployments over that time.

Based on the way that you have attacked everyone here telling them that they don't know what they are talking about and apparently only you do, I'll take your criticism as a badge of honor.

 

[classy]

I have been in the server business almost 20 years. Used to compsurf drives for netware 2.X, wired building for ARCnet with RJ-11 and have seen more than my fair share of data centers and server deployments over that time.

Based on the way that you have attacked everyone here telling them that they don't know what they are talking about and apparently only you do, I'll take your criticism as a badge of honor.

I have not attacked anyone, I just refuted your stupid analogies. Virtual cores don't correlate to physical cores and some of the other wrong stuff you said. Virtualization doesn't work like that, whether its Hyper-V or VMWare. If costs was the main factor that drove technology today, Microsoft would have died a long time ago. And I love Microsoft, I am a true supporter, but it is erroneous to suggest a Novell correlation with VMWare. And if you have been in the server business 20 years, doesn't mean you know what the hell your talking about when it concerns virtualization. Even I don't understand it all and don't understand the true working of hyper-v either. Thats why I suggested he find someone who has worked with hyper-v in production so he can get a much better picture, so he can make not the cheapest choice, but the best choice.

 

[classy]

And here is an article just for JFAMD, a recent up to date article

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid94_gci1369150,00.html

Completely speaks to the state of the virtualizaton market. Here is a couple of quick quotes

To no one's surprise, survey respondents reported using VMware Inc. over other virtualization software by a wide margin: 72.4% identified some VMware edition as their primary virtualization platform (ESX 2.x to 4.x or VMware Server), compared with 14.8% that cited a Microsoft offering (Hyper-V or Virtual Server).

And what about cost

Not surprisingly, potential refugees from VMware cited cost as the primary reason they'll evaluate another (55.7%), followed by the desire to extend the feature set (31%) and avoid vendor lock-in (27.6%). But survey takers exploring alternatives to Hyper-V also listed cost and lock-in as concerns (49%, and 26.5%) and also valued the idea of extending the feature set (32.7%).

55% listed cost a leading factor to look elsewhere from VMWare and 49% even for Hyper-V. I guess Hyper-V ain't as cheap as some people make it out to be.

 

[JFAMD]

55% listed cost a leading factor to look elsewhere from VMWare

Thanks for proving my point. When more than half of your customers are looking at the competition because of your price, something needs to be addressed. It is cheaper to keep existing customers than acquire new ones.

 

[classy]

Thanks for proving my point. When more than half of your customers are looking at the competition because of your price, something needs to be addressed. It is cheaper to keep existing customers than acquire new ones.

LOL Okay spanky

55% of Vmware customers and 49% of hyper-v evaluate cost to look elsewhere. If your Novell analogy had even an ounce of water weight, that Hyper-V number should have been much much less. Because remember you have been touting price price price. Well hyper-v users you would think would not be looking at price, because according to you its significantly cheaper than VMWare. Maybe when you get past all the window sticker prices, in the real world, they have realized its not.

 

[JFAMD]

VMware is just as much at risk from Xen, KVM and even Parallels (heavy in the ISP space.)

The only difference is that Microsoft has the most marketing muscle to grab market share, so they could be the largest beneficiary of any migration off of VMware. But in my mind, customers are really looking at the cost of virtualization more now than in the past. Previously, the pitch was $2K of software vs. $20K of hardware and the it was really easy to make the pitch.

Today, with close to half of the workloads being virtualized (depending on which analyst you believe), the question is the $2K hypervisor or the alternatives.

The benefit of hardware consolidation has played itself out and people are into the new value prop; they can no longer point to the hardware savings in making comparisons. This changes the market dynamics because you used to pitch a virtualized consolidated solution vs. more boxes. Now it is virtualized consolidated vs. virtualized consolidated; suddenly the hypervisor price matters where it didn't in the past.

 

[gdsqx9r]

You might want to check the VMware web site. They have ESXi (installable), which is free. It might fit your needs it might not, It depends on what you are doing. Don't quote me on what else you need, but if you are a small shop and want to visualize a couple of servers this might help.

We have been using VMware ESX 3.5 and 4 and we find out that with a dual quad core cpu isn't an issue but memory is. We have a 64G dual quad core running about 15-20 VM's (Windows 2000 server, Win2k3 server and Win2008 server) and we don't have an issue with memory or cpu. We have a 32g dual quad core with 10-15 servers and vmware handles it without any problems.

 

[dq]

And here is an article just for JFAMD, a recent up to date article

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid94_gci1369150,00.html

Completely speaks to the state of the virtualizaton market. Here is a couple of quick quotes



And what about cost



55% listed cost a leading factor to look elsewhere from VMWare and 49% even for Hyper-V. I guess Hyper-V ain't as cheap as some people make it out to be.

That is actually quite a good article... thanks for that mate!

 

[dq]

You might want to check the VMware web site. They have ESXi (installable), which is free. It might fit your needs it might not, It depends on what you are doing. Don't quote me on what else you need, but if you are a small shop and want to visualize a couple of servers this might help.

We have been using VMware ESX 3.5 and 4 and we find out that with a dual quad core cpu isn't an issue but memory is. We have a 64G dual quad core running about 15-20 VM's (Windows 2000 server, Win2k3 server and Win2008 server) and we don't have an issue with memory or cpu. We have a 32g dual quad core with 10-15 servers and vmware handles it without any problems.

I've finally freed up a server for testing purposes (64bit) I've played with Hyper-V now time to have a look at ESXi... the G7 server should be with me in about 3 weeks
Any other virtulisation products to try or to play with before the final big decision..?

Thanks again folks..