• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Anyone playing with Hyper-V?

C

Captain Colonoscopy

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
3,861
So, I have been playing around with Hyper-V in the office since it was in beta when Server 2008 went RTM. After Hyper-V went RTM I figured they would fix most of the things that sucked about it, but it appears I was wrong. Only linux support was for SLED, but I guess I should have expected that. Still can't attach a SCSI device to a VM, like a backup drive, etc.

Then, the kicker, we are going to start selling some VMware stuff after we came to the conclusion that Hyper-V is only slightly better than terrible. So, I am tasked with setting up a VMware ESX server which was amazingly simple. Then I have to migrate our VMs from Hyper-V to ESX, seems like a simple task, you just run the converter to move the "physical" server to the new Virtual Server. Nope, MS dicked up something with the software VSS on the VMs to the point that no matter what you do you cannot use the converter to move a Hyper-V 2008 VM to ESX. Bah!

So, here I am, restoring our file server data from a tape I made earlier today to our "new" file server on the temp ESX server. Then I get to wipe our Hyper-V server, throw another 4GB of RAM and a dual-NIC card up in there and install ESX, then move our VMs back. . . .

I'm curious to know if anyone else is playing with Hyper-V, do you plan on actually using it in a production environment, etc?
 
I pretty much agree with everything you've said. VMware products are far superior, plain and simple.
 
MorfiusX said:
I pretty much agree with everything you've said. VMware products are far superior, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I always knew they were better, we ran the free vmware stuff in the office before we decided to try out Hyper-V. I had no idea how much better ESX server was, though. OMG is is freaking awesome compared to Hyper-V
 
Captain Colonoscopy said:
I always knew they were better, we ran the free vmware stuff in the office before we decided to try out Hyper-V. I had no idea how much better ESX server was, though. OMG is is freaking awesome compared to Hyper-V
Click to expand...

The whole VMware Infrastructure when fully built is my favorite technology to work with.
 
I installed it on my server at home only to find out that it supports basically 1 distro of linux. I know its a little off topic but is there trials for ESX Server available? I maybe implementing an ESX server soon at my work and would like to give it a try on my test server first.
 
I have been having some slow internet connection on my host with VMware doing P2P connections. VMware is set to NAT in order to get a internet connection established.
 
`danny said:
I installed it on my server at home only to find out that it supports basically 1 distro of linux. I know its a little off topic but is there trials for ESX Server available? I maybe implementing an ESX server soon at my work and would like to give it a try on my test server first.
Click to expand...

yeah, go to vmware.com and download esx server, you get 60 days to buy and its about $400 for one server with up to 2 CPUs and no support options. Goes up from there.
 
Your talking about software that was just RTM vs software that has been in development for years, not really fair at this point.
 
Have you guys bothered trying other linux distros? Debian works great for me even though it's not "supported' officially. And my other server 2008 VMs have been running great so no problems with it here, it's been fast and stable so far.
 
Hyper-v is good enought for me but im only running w2k3 and w2k8 servers on it. Ive used VMware products and they do have superior features and can run almost anything...i got OSX leopard running on it....but VI3 is also very expensive compared to w2k8
 
Zlash said:
Have you guys bothered trying other linux distros? Debian works great for me even though it's not "supported' officially. And my other server 2008 VMs have been running great so no problems with it here, it's been fast and stable so far.
Click to expand...

In VMware, I have ran Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, CentOS, ClarkConnect, Gentoo, and many different firewall distros. The only time I ran into problems was with the firewall distros, but I think that was more because of the test box I was running them on.

nitrobass24 said:
Hyper-v is good enought for me but im only running w2k3 and w2k8 servers on it. Ive used VMware products and they do have superior features and can run almost anything...i got OSX leopard running on it....but VI3 is also very expensive compared to w2k8
Click to expand...

In the enterprise world, initial cost should not be the only thing you look at. Your TCO on VI will usually be lower than MS because of ease of administration, fexibility, and performance.
 
MorfiusX said:
In the enterprise world, initial cost should not be the only thing you look at. Your TCO on VI will usually be lower than MS because of ease of administration, fexibility, and performance.
Click to expand...

Yes but in the small business, or home use world is way to expensive
 
nitrobass24 said:
Yes but in the small business, or home use world is way to expensive
Click to expand...

That's what VMware Server (free) is designed for. While it doesn't have all of the features of VI, it still way better than MS offerings. The RC of VMware Server 2 is very nice.
 
I played with Hyper-v for about 10 minutes, after I realized how inferior it was to VM ware i didn't waste any more time, and from reading these comments I'm glad I didn't

VM ware is am amazing solution, the Vm ware converter has saved me SOOO much time in test enviroments... Snag a copy of my DC, another of my exchange create another vlan Run an entirely different network FUCK IT up ..rinse repeat I love it :)
 
The free version of VMWare server wouldn't be free if MS didn't provide Virtual Server and Hyper-V for free...
 
nessus said:
The free version of VMWare server wouldn't be free if MS didn't provide Virtual Server and Hyper-V for free...
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think its the exact opposite...The free stuff is to just get you hooked and then you spend Money... Vmware had a free product before anyone had anything like it in the market..

There business model is solid, give you an awesome product for free, realize how amazing it is and how it can help your company and then sell you the upgraded even better product for a price thats reasonable yet very profitable.

Makes sense to me!
 
bigj2k1 said:
I disagree, I think its the exact opposite...The free stuff is to just get you hooked and then you spend Money... Vmware had a free product before anyone had anything like it in the market..

There business model is solid, give you an awesome product for free, realize how amazing it is and how it can help your company and then sell you the upgraded even better product for a price thats reasonable yet very profitable.

Makes sense to me!
Click to expand...

This is correct. VMware took GSX and made it VMware server and gave it away for free. MS responded by giving away Virtual Server. MS also gives away Virtual PC, but it's pretty craptastic too. VMware workstation is so much better that I don't mind paying the ~$150 for the license.
 
I am actually currently in the process of switching from Virtuozzo (running Centos) to ...., well ... something else. The Virtuozzo customer service just totally went down the drain in the past year, at least from my perspective as someone who only owned two two-socket licenses.

Hyper-V is attractive because no additional cost is associated with installing it. It's understood that VMware VI is a superior product, but where I work at I simply can't justify the cost of buying a set of VMware tools to make this all work. I own VMware Workstation, and I love it, but I just can't fork out for a VI license and associated tools that will allow me to run 4 VMs on two physical servers. It would cost thousands to get that done.
 
If you are not looking to do HA or DRS, then VMware Server would do just fine. It comes as an RPM you can install on CentOS.
 
MorfiusX said:
If you are not looking to do HA or DRS, then VMware Server would do just fine. It comes as an RPM you can install on CentOS.
Click to expand...

QFT, VMware server runs very stable on CentOS/Redhat. I used to run quite a few machines on it and I never had an issue.

HP DL760 with 10 XP workstations running on each.
 
Doesn't VMware server put one in largely the same boat as Hyper-V though? In such sense that one is missing out on all the tools that make VMware easier to administer/maintain?

DRS or HA isn't important for us, the servers are under low load (both cpu/memory as well as bandwidth). I nixed the Virtuozzo setup because I really need to run Windows server VMs and while I had a Linux and a Windows license, the Virtuozzo folks were entirely unhelpful in determining whether it will work with Windows 2008.

In the end I really only need one Linux VM, which actually needs to run Debian, the other 5 VMs will all be running Windows 2008. I have enough Windows 2008 Enterprise licenses to run server core on the physical hosts, and the VMs as well. so that's what I was going for.

I may have a look at VMware server, though from me installing Hyper-V to test things out I didn't see anything that was cumbersome or difficult. Installing Hyper-V on a Windows Server Core machine was a breeze, and setting the VMs up wasn't much different from Virtuozzo.
 
Thuleman said:
Doesn't VMware server put one in largely the same boat as Hyper-V though? In such sense that one is missing out on all the tools that make VMware easier to administer/maintain?
Click to expand...

VMware server is capable of being managed by Virtual Center. However Virtual Center is an additional cost. So yes you are missing out on that functionality, however you still get the stability for free. If you find yourself lacking in tools and so forth then you're going to have to spend a bit more but Virtual Center is pretty damn nice. If you've never used it; download the trial and see if it fits what you're missing out on.
 
QHalo said:
VMware server is capable of being managed by Virtual Center. However Virtual Center is an additional cost. So yes you are missing out on that functionality, however you still get the stability for free. If you find yourself lacking in tools and so forth then you're going to have to spend a bit more but Virtual Center is pretty damn nice. If you've never used it; download the trial and see if it fits what you're missing out on.
Click to expand...

I personally don't use Virtual Center with VMware Server. I don't see the point. The VMs are easy enough to manage either with the console or the new web interface in Server 2. For the most part, management of the VMware Server side of things is pretty minimal. Once you get a VM set up, you pretty much use the VM's OS management tools (SSH for Linux, RDP for Windows, etc).
 
I guess I am confused at this point.

We have established that VMware VI is awesome due to the ease of administration and maintenance tools provided in the package. We have also established that Hyper-V is nowhere close to VMware VI. In addition we all seem to agree that comparing apples to apples, VMware Server properly compares to Hyper-V.

Now then there is the crowd who says Hyper-V sucks in comparison to VMware server. What I don't see is some more information on that beyond the basic statement.

In an environment where spending thousands of dollars on VI licensing will not be an option, and thus the whole "business continuity" of the ability to upgrade VMware Server to VMware ESX(i) doesn't apply, what is it that makes VMware server any better than Hyper-V?

Hyper-V implementers likely put some faith into Microsoft to over time create admin tools that will make certain tasks easier. Personally, I can't relate to those who run dozens or hundreds of VMs, but for someone just running a handful of VMs on a couple physical servers, what's the incentive to go with VMware Server tather than Hyper-V?

It's understood that VMware Server is free, but the "It's free, so why not do it?" isn't really good enough. Conceivably MS apps will play better with Hyper-V, and MS will attempt to provide Hyper-V users with advantages which will not be accessible to 3rd party solutions for some time, or at all.

Of course I am not suggesting to switch a current VMware production system to Hyper-V all of a sudden, but what's the argument to not use Hyper-V in a brand new virtualization implementation?
 
Here's my opinion why VMware Server (Especially 2.0) is better than Hyper-V:

- Longer track record, VMware is the leader in the industry
- Server can be a completely free solution when used with Linux - Hyper-V you must license the OS
- Greater compatibility for operating systems
- Excellent performance - With Linux OS tweaks, I see better performance with VMware server, Moving up to ESX and its even better.
- Scalability - When/If you are ready to move to a VI setup, that move is relatively easy
- Ease of administration (even without Virtual Center)
- VMware Server

I'm sure I could think of more, but that's just off the top of my head.
 
MorfiusX said:
Here's my opinion why VMware Server (Especially 2.0) is better than Hyper-V:

- Longer track record, VMware is the leader in the industry
- Server can be a completely free solution when used with Linux - Hyper-V you must license the OS
- Greater compatibility for operating systems
- Excellent performance - With Linux OS tweaks, I see better performance with VMware server, Moving up to ESX and its even better.
- Scalability - When/If you are ready to move to a VI setup, that move is relatively easy
- Ease of administration (even without Virtual Center)
- VMware Server

I'm sure I could think of more, but that's just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


To play devil's advocate...you gave really 2 things in your opinion that are actual benefits in your opinion. A track record doesn't make something better, if your already running windows you don't need to license the OS, he's not going to move to VI, and "VMWare Server" isn't a benefit. Now if it has better performance, I don't know and the arguement for management tools doesn't seem like a big deal to me...there's just not a whole lot to manage on a VM once you get it up and running and it only takes a minute to get it running.
 
The management aspect of Hyper-V seems to go the System Center way via Virtual Machine Manager. VMM is available through TechNet (just checked and 2007 is available for download). I would assume anyone administering Windows servers has a TechNet subscription.

The management tools I would consider important is the LiveMigration/QuickMigration functionality and just general monkeying with VMs (cloning, applying patches to clone to test what the patch breaks, etc. etc.).

I am not sure whether VMware Server really performs better when running under Windows 2008 Server and with 2008 Server VMs. 64bit support is native to Hyper-V, while it's not quite like that in VMware Server as far as taking advantage of Intel or AMDs virtualization instruction set.

The one thing that really differentiates VMware Server and Hyper-V in my mind is that one can't oversubscribe memory in Hyper-V. While memory is cheap these days, and it's thus mostly a non-issue, it's still a bit unfortunate that Hyper-V locks a VM into whatever memory was allocated to it and at the same time claims that memory exclusively for that VM.

Meaning that if I have a machine with 4GB, and I use 1GB for the host, and then I create three more VMs with 1GB each, it will not let me create another VM because I am out of memory to do so.
 
Zlash said:
To play devil's advocate...you gave really 2 things in your opinion that are actual benefits in your opinion. A track record doesn't make something better, if your already running windows you don't need to license the OS, he's not going to move to VI, and "VMWare Server" isn't a benefit. Now if it has better performance, I don't know and the arguement for management tools doesn't seem like a big deal to me...there's just not a whole lot to manage on a VM once you get it up and running and it only takes a minute to get it running.
Click to expand...

I wasn't doing a full cost/benefit analysis of the two products. I was just giving some reasons why I use the product.

And yes, you have to license the host OS to run Hyper-V. The MS recommended way to run Hyper-V is on a dedicated host. You want that host to only run Hyper-V, nothing else. Any other configuration may not be supported.

And I completely disagree about the track record thing. In an enterprise, I want a product that I know has stood the test of time in the enterprise. I don't want some fly by night product (not that Hyper-V is). This track record allows not only the technical support of the manufacturer to build up, but the community as well.
 
I should also note that Hyper-V ONLY supports Guest OSes from Microsoft and SuSE Enterprise. I have tried installing different Linux flavors and even the OpenSuSE distros didn't work.

So, that right there, may make your decisions for you. If you need to run Linux Guests then you CANNOT use Hyper-V.
 
We're using VI3 with ESX 3.5, and about to setup a SAN with CB and VMotion. Their support is excellent (even though you'll most likely talk to someone in India/Pakistan) and it's really nice to work with their software.

Using VMWare Converter to P2V our exchange and dc into their own virtual switch for testing makes things a bit easier on my end. :)
 
My company looked into vmaware as a solution for server consolidation/virtualization.

We ended up going with Citrix XenServer for our environment, we're running two physical XenServer boxes with 11 virtualized servers total between the two boxes. We're also using XenCenter to control the VM's between the boxes, maintenance is a piece of cake as we can migrate all the VM's from one server to another if needed.

While I haven't personally used VMware I've heard nothing but good things.
 
Corporal79 said:
We're also using XenCenter to control the VM's between the boxes, maintenance is a piece of cake as we can migrate all the VM's from one server to another if needed.
Click to expand...
I imagine it requires a proxy server to handle the migration? If so, does it support the use of a SAN for backing up VMs?
 
Thuleman said:
That's incorrect.
You can use Hyper-V, but you will receive no support from Microsoft for non-SUSE distros.

For info on how to install Debian on Hyper-V see:
http://wiki.debian.org/WindowsServerHyperV
Click to expand...

Well, I tried installing both openSuSE 10 and 11 as well as Ubuntu 7.04, 7.10 and 8.04 server and desktop versions, with no luck. Ubuntu would install but the networking didn't work and OpenSuse wouldn't even finish installing. So, while it may be possible it certainly isn't user friendly. :D
 
You need to add a legacy network adapter to get that part working by the way, it won't work with the default one.
 
Hi Thuleman,

I am not sure if you had already figured it out, but only SUSE Linux Enterprise is supported on Hyper-V, other versions might work but it will require plenty of work and will not be supported.

Even with SUSE Linux Enterprise you will need to follow up a good set of complex instructions to enhance the performance & stability of Linux on Hyper-V, check out the article below of a complete instructions of how to do so.

Install SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 SP1 & Component Integration for Linux on Hyper-V

How do u feel about these instruction? Too much for you if so maybe you should consider VMware ESX/ESXi.

I hope that help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top