• 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.

HyperV vs Vmware?

IceDigger

IceDigger

[H]F Junkie
2FA
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Messages
12,324
Which is better? Hyper-V or Vmware Player?

I have hyperv with my technet subscription that I would like to play with but have not really ventured to far into the VM world. I have a little experience with VMware player and virtualbox.

I am running Windows Server 2008 r2 sp1.
 
Last edited:
Vmware player will just play the vm files. If I remember correctly it will not let you create or manipulate vm's.

I'm sure other will put their input, but you can't go wrong with vmware esxi. Probably couldn't go wrong with vmware workstation / server 2.0 either.

As for Hyper-V. I despise it with a passion. Interface is clunky, can't p2v natively, runs on top of an already bloated server os, clunky networking config and this list goes on. We aquired a company late last year that was running hyper-v and in less than 2 weeks it will be retired and we won't be looking back.

Anyways. Do you research and see what works best for you. Also take everything that I said with a grain of salt. I dislike Hyper-V, but others have found it useful / resourceful... Either that or haven't really found vmware yet.. Not sure which is which
 
Depends on what you want to do. If you want to run VMs on your desktop/workstation, then VMWare Player is a better product. You can create VMs with it. If you want to have a dedicated server for VMs, Hyper-V is a better choice.

I run Hyper-V on Windows 2008 R2 at the office, partly due to pricing issues. Its been solid. The interface leaves a bit to be desired, but for single server use its fine and IMHO, similar to the admin of a single ESXi box without vCenter. Network config is no worse than any other windows box. Basically, if you have any Windows admin ability, Hyper-V is easy.
 
I haven't taken the time to look (and probably won't either), but can you run linux OSs on hyperv? Mainly Ubuntu or Red Hat flavor OSs?
 
calvinj said:
I haven't taken the time to look (and probably won't either), but can you run linux OSs on hyperv? Mainly Ubuntu or Red Hat flavor OSs?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have a few RHEL VMs running with no problem. Hyper-V Linux Integration Components are included in very recent kernels, so recent Ubuntu distros should run perfectly.
 
We use Hyper-V (also due to pricing) and it's been fine for us as well. It's been working so well that we are going to test a mail server (exchange 2010) on it and probably use it exclusively from now on for new servers.
 
I run hyper v on 2008r2 also, runn 3 vm windows machine 2 linux ones and a trixbox.
 
I'm running it on a Xeon 5150 w/4GB ram. Is that enough or should I get more ram?
 
calvinj said:
Vmware player will just play the vm files. If I remember correctly it will not let you create or manipulate vm's.

I'm sure other will put their input, but you can't go wrong with vmware esxi. Probably couldn't go wrong with vmware workstation / server 2.0 either.

As for Hyper-V. I despise it with a passion. Interface is clunky, can't p2v natively, runs on top of an already bloated server os, clunky networking config and this list goes on. We aquired a company late last year that was running hyper-v and in less than 2 weeks it will be retired and we won't be looking back.

Anyways. Do you research and see what works best for you. Also take everything that I said with a grain of salt. I dislike Hyper-V, but others have found it useful / resourceful... Either that or haven't really found vmware yet.. Not sure which is which
Click to expand...

Opinions are opinions, but i havent run into anything you have mentioned with Hyper-V. This coming from an infrastructure of over 500 Hyper-V Guests Clustered on SAN running everything from SQL/File servers/IIS/AD/Linux OS/etc/etc. The product has matured greatly with 2008 R2 and SP1. Along with SCVMM and the new SCVMM 2012 beta really are making hyper-v a top contender.

And LOL @ the clunk OS statement. You do know you can run Hyper-V as a stanadlone server? Just like Xen/VMware?

I love vmware too, but i have no qualms at all about implementing Hyper-V along with SCVMM these days, P2Vs work great. You also cant beat the $$ when it comes to Datacenter and guest licensing.
If you are looking for a single server solution, I would just recommend going with XenServer over VMware or Hyper-v. Purely on cost(unless thats not an issue).

so for the OP, if you have technet. There is no reason not to delve into Hyper-V. Its use is growing very fast in the enterprise.
 
Last edited:
4saken said:
Opinions are opinions
Click to expand...

Yes they are.. That's why I went a head and put that in there. While many people have had good luck with Hyper-V.. I have not.

4saken said:
And LOL @ the clunk OS statement. You do know you can run Hyper-V as a stanadlone server? Just like Xen/VMware?
Click to expand...

Yes I'm aware you can run it stand alone, but can you get the Hyper-V install to install on nothing more than a 1 gb SD card? or how about 32-64mb install total? I'm not talking storage. I'm talking the install all together. How about using less than 512 of ram sitting idle with no VMs running?
 
calvinj said:
Yes they are.. That's why I went a head and put that in there. While many people have had good luck with Hyper-V.. I have not.



Yes I'm aware you can run it stand alone, but can you get the Hyper-V install to install on nothing more than a 1 gb SD card? or how about 32-64mb install total? I'm not talking storage. I'm talking the install all together. How about using less than 512 of ram sitting idle with no VMs running?
Click to expand...

I guess i wouldnt have any need to ever do that in our environment, so i couldnt tell you. :p
 
lizardking009 said:
Depends on what you want to do. If you want to run VMs on your desktop/workstation, then VMWare Player is a better product. You can create VMs with it. If you want to have a dedicated server for VMs, Hyper-V is a better choice.

I run Hyper-V on Windows 2008 R2 at the office, partly due to pricing issues. Its been solid. The interface leaves a bit to be desired, but for single server use its fine and IMHO, similar to the admin of a single ESXi box without vCenter. Network config is no worse than any other windows box. Basically, if you have any Windows admin ability, Hyper-V is easy.
Click to expand...

This. I prefer Hyper-V, (spent more time with it) but then again I'm running Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise. If I were running on a workstation, then VMWare would be my only choice.
 
I use both, VMWare handles overallocation of resources better then Hyper-V but you can't beat Hyper-V for free with 2008R2 Standard or Enterprise edition and it works well. There are more options for backups with VMWare with more vendors, hopefully that will change soon as well P2V is more mature with VMWare then Hyper-V.
 
calvinj said:
Yes I'm aware you can run it stand alone, but can you get the Hyper-V install to install on nothing more than a 1 gb SD card? or how about 32-64mb install total? I'm not talking storage. I'm talking the install all together. How about using less than 512 of ram sitting idle with no VMs running?
Click to expand...

While these are cool bullet points for vSphere, how much to they really matter? In a typical server, a pair of drives in RAID 1 for boot are a tiny part of the price. And with memory being so cheap, what's another 256mb, if even that much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top