Running away screaming from ESXi (Free), best alternatives?

Why do you dodge in boxing when someone is telegraphing a haymaker?

The bigger picture is that I need a longer term infrastructure to get into, and now is the time I can get that going. VMware was the default and easy choice, and if I get any deeper into it it'll just be that much harder to pull out.

The way I see it, their half-baked release of 5.5 isn't a mistake - it's a clear and obvious message that they have no intention of keeping the Free Hypervisor a relevant option for the SMB space. Similar to when they neutered the Backup APIs. I can completely understand the strategy, and the need to protect the revenue stream - it's just not something I can justify the cost on at this time.

You think HyperV is perfect? Think again. You want to make HyperV cluster as nice a VM Cluster you better know your Windows Server Shit and very well and in the end you still will want to purchase SCCM/SCVM. Then you have to deploy 3 Servers just to manage, you the need SQL Server, SCCM and SCVM servers. Then you get into the complexity of both and their setup and to do it correctly it will take you minimum 10 hours.

The backup API in Vmware free does suck but then again Windows Server Backup sucks my nuts as well. FYI Windows Server Backup on a HyperV host will stall exchange 2013 half the time and constant reboots are needed. It will also crash third party databases. VSS is a unreliable POS that has broken on me more then I can count.

HyperV server is a catch 22 as well, if you don't have an AD your fucked cause its a mess to manage hyperV with out an AD. Yes there are people that don't have AD nor do they want it.

Yes both have their advantages and disadvantages I run both. Both have their uses but neither is perfect but bashing VMWare because people asked for a quick and simple management appliance is just dumb assery when you compare it to the cluster fuck of management tools from MS.

FYI I am a VCP and HyperV certified. I know both in depth and vmware has much better tools then MS.

Any way you complain like its the end of the world by buying into one when conversion to v2v is very easy and switching between hypervisors is not the end of the world.
 
Why do you dodge in boxing when someone is telegraphing a haymaker?

The bigger picture is that I need a longer term infrastructure to get into, and now is the time I can get that going. VMware was the default and easy choice, and if I get any deeper into it it'll just be that much harder to pull out.

The way I see it, their half-baked release of 5.5 isn't a mistake - it's a clear and obvious message that they have no intention of keeping the Free Hypervisor a relevant option for the SMB space. Similar to when they neutered the Backup APIs. I can completely understand the strategy, and the need to protect the revenue stream - it's just not something I can justify the cost on at this time.

OK, I'm not missing anything then, we're just reading the same thing two different ways. I never saw the free license as particularly relevant to SMB, and I don't see any major change to that here. I read the lack of a web client for standalone hosts in 5.5 (I'm assuming this is what you refer to as "half-baked") more as "we're still building something new from the ground up" than "attempt to hamper those using the free license model."

That said, I'm all for examining options and finding the most cost-effective solution to meet your needs.

Just that my experience with XenServer sent me screaming back to VMware. ;)
 
Regardless of whether the free version is working to your satisfaction or not, shouldn't the real question be why you're running critical business systems on 'free' software?
 
You think HyperV is perfect? Think again. You want to make HyperV cluster as nice a VM Cluster you better know your Windows Server Shit and very well and in the end you still will want to purchase SCCM/SCVM. Then you have to deploy 3 Servers just to manage, you the need SQL Server, SCCM and SCVM servers. Then you get into the complexity of both and their setup and to do it correctly it will take you minimum 10 hours.

The backup API in Vmware free does suck but then again Windows Server Backup sucks my nuts as well. FYI Windows Server Backup on a HyperV host will stall exchange 2013 half the time and constant reboots are needed. It will also crash third party databases. VSS is a unreliable POS that has broken on me more then I can count.

HyperV server is a catch 22 as well, if you don't have an AD your fucked cause its a mess to manage hyperV with out an AD. Yes there are people that don't have AD nor do they want it.

Yes both have their advantages and disadvantages I run both. Both have their uses but neither is perfect but bashing VMWare because people asked for a quick and simple management appliance is just dumb assery when you compare it to the cluster fuck of management tools from MS.

FYI I am a VCP and HyperV certified. I know both in depth and vmware has much better tools then MS.

Any way you complain like its the end of the world by buying into one when conversion to v2v is very easy and switching between hypervisors is not the end of the world.
I don't think I'd ever call a Microsoft product "perfect". You must have me confused with Mr. Strawman from next door.

Thanks for the honest review on HyperV - I haven't even gotten my feet wet with it, so I have little to no opinion at this point, other than an healthy distrust of all things Microsoft. Not sure where you got the idea I was praising it.

As for the v2v options, if there is one thing that I know for certain it's that everything always works great, until it doesn't. VMware's p2v is quite exceptional from my experience, but still has issues. I can't imagine v2v is absolutely perfect in all cases, and fork-lifting infrastructure is a big job no matter how you slice it.
 
Regardless of whether the free version is working to your satisfaction or not, shouldn't the real question be why you're running critical business systems on 'free' software?

For a bunch of systems that are not near business critical (more like "Business Convenient") that's a massive bill. If this was supporting our primary e-mail backend, sure, cost of doing business - but that's not the case here.

Already said it's not business critical.
 
Open is most important - not free (as in beer). We've made over $100k in contributions to multiple open-source projects over the past decade.

I understand the moral high ground of open software, as in, you can look at the source code.

BUT, in operational terms that's highly irrelevant. Who has the time to look through millions of lines of source code. The open source community relies on "others" to check the code, meaning that the overwhelming majority of open source users has never looked at the code and just assumes that someone else does.

You mentioned that you are using a bunch of B2B software, my guess is that those vendors don't show you their source code, so why is it OK to trust your logistics to closed code but not your virtualization?

In the field I work I often come across open source zealots who distrust everyone and everything, or so they think, till you point out that their lives are governed by closed source software and that they have no say in the matter at all.

Objecting to closed source on principle is imho bad business. "Open is important" is not a real business requirement, it's a personal bias of whomever instituted that policy.
 
Why do you dodge in boxing when someone is telegraphing a haymaker?

The bigger picture is that I need a longer term infrastructure to get into, and now is the time I can get that going. VMware was the default and easy choice, and if I get any deeper into it it'll just be that much harder to pull out.

The way I see it, their half-baked release of 5.5 isn't a mistake - it's a clear and obvious message that they have no intention of keeping the Free Hypervisor a relevant option for the SMB space. Similar to when they neutered the Backup APIs. I can completely understand the strategy, and the need to protect the revenue stream - it's just not something I can justify the cost on at this time.
:rolleyes: Have you bothered to actually ready the expert's responses to your whining?
 
Already said it's not business critical.

But you're running horribly under-consolidated hosts and someone already mentioned that an Essentials license is only $600. Is that too much cash even for 'Business Convenient'?
 
Hey all,

Checked our internal records on the HW10 edit issue, this has already been put on the radar and there are fixes going in place to help with these issues...

Also if you already have a HW10 Machine you can manage via PowerCLI
http://kb.vmware.com/kb/2061336
 
I don't think I'd ever call a Microsoft product "perfect". You must have me confused with Mr. Strawman from next door.

Thanks for the honest review on HyperV - I haven't even gotten my feet wet with it, so I have little to no opinion at this point, other than an healthy distrust of all things Microsoft. Not sure where you got the idea I was praising it.

As for the v2v options, if there is one thing that I know for certain it's that everything always works great, until it doesn't. VMware's p2v is quite exceptional from my experience, but still has issues. I can't imagine v2v is absolutely perfect in all cases, and fork-lifting infrastructure is a big job no matter how you slice it.

As for P2V solutions from Microsoft. They suck, I use the Disk2VHD which is free but is really simple compared to VMWare Offerings.

Again I prefer to just pay for most of my products because I need/want support.
The whole Free stuff is a catch 22.
 
:rolleyes: Have you bothered to actually ready the expert's responses to your whining?
You mean the one that doesn't address it at all, but says "Hey, they might fix that thing that's entirely and completely intentionally broken and under-documented, just do you y'all a favor"?

Yeah, I read that. Did you? :rolleyes:
 
Intentionally broken? Get out your tinfoil hat.
 
Last edited:
I understand the moral high ground of open software, as in, you can look at the source code.

BUT, in operational terms that's highly irrelevant. Who has the time to look through millions of lines of source code. The open source community relies on "others" to check the code, meaning that the overwhelming majority of open source users has never looked at the code and just assumes that someone else does.

You mentioned that you are using a bunch of B2B software, my guess is that those vendors don't show you their source code, so why is it OK to trust your logistics to closed code but not your virtualization?

In the field I work I often come across open source zealots who distrust everyone and everything, or so they think, till you point out that their lives are governed by closed source software and that they have no say in the matter at all.

Objecting to closed source on principle is imho bad business. "Open is important" is not a real business requirement, it's a personal bias of whomever instituted that policy.
Yeah, no real businesses run or build on Open Source....Google, Facebook, Oracle, Citrix, Amazon, Apple..... all just a bunch of idiot zealots. Total and absolute morons who couldn't run a lemonade stand. You're right.

But seriously, obviously a lot of the systems I run are closed - more than half my servers are Windows. That's fine, especially since there's generally a reasonable and measurable ROI on those systems.

It has very little to do with actually getting into the code, primarily it has to do with getting in on a predictable and sustainable license. "Free" proprietary software rarely grants a perpetual license.
 
Intentionally broken? Get out your tinfoil hat.
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=2061336 said:
Resolution
This is an expected behavior. Ensure you connect to the vCenter Server with the vSphere Web Client to edit the settings of the virtual machine.
Unless they've redefined what "expected" means, yeah, I'd say that's intentional. No tinfoil required, but ignorant snark is always welcome. :cool:
 
Why do you dodge in boxing when someone is telegraphing a haymaker?

The bigger picture is that I need a longer term infrastructure to get into, and now is the time I can get that going. VMware was the default and easy choice, and if I get any deeper into it it'll just be that much harder to pull out.

The way I see it, their half-baked release of 5.5 isn't a mistake - it's a clear and obvious message that they have no intention of keeping the Free Hypervisor a relevant option for the SMB space. Similar to when they neutered the Backup APIs. I can completely understand the strategy, and the need to protect the revenue stream - it's just not something I can justify the cost on at this time.

1. The backup APIs have always been licensed features. Always. I'm not sure where you're seeing them neutered?
2. We have no intention of leaving the free / SMB market. Quite the contrary in fact.

I'm completely confused about how you're interpreting all of this - there's a bug on HW10, fair enough - it's getting fixed. There's no evidence for leaving the SMB market.
 
OK, I'm not missing anything then, we're just reading the same thing two different ways. I never saw the free license as particularly relevant to SMB, and I don't see any major change to that here. I read the lack of a web client for standalone hosts in 5.5 (I'm assuming this is what you refer to as "half-baked") more as "we're still building something new from the ground up" than "attempt to hamper those using the free license model."

That said, I'm all for examining options and finding the most cost-effective solution to meet your needs.

Just that my experience with XenServer sent me screaming back to VMware. ;)

This. Very much accurate.

Most SMB customers are licensed, and close to 100% virtualized as well. The free version is used far more by the community, home labs, small ROBO offices that just need one box and no central management, etc. They have VC and Essentials or Ess+ licenses, often 3 node clusters (we used to see a lot of 2 node ones, but now everyone is using all 3).

Innocence, there is NO plan to end the free version or limiting its ability to be managed. There is a bug in HW10 right now, but there are long term solutions coming as well.
 
You mean the one that doesn't address it at all, but says "Hey, they might fix that thing that's entirely and completely intentionally broken and under-documented, just do you y'all a favor"?

Yeah, I read that. Did you? :rolleyes:

You mean the thing VMware found and published a public KB on a few days after release? (the 23rd date was the second revision of the KB).

Unless they've redefined what "expected" means, yeah, I'd say that's intentional. No tinfoil required, but ignorant snark is always welcome. :cool:

The gentleman who wrote the KB does not speak English as a first language. I'll get the KB corrected wording wise.

VMware is not out to just randomly screw users over :rolleyes:
 
Just that my experience with XenServer sent me screaming back to VMware. ;)

I briefly tried xenserver and left quickly too. The GUI was okay, but I found it very offputting that everything on the datastores used some kind of random GUID name. So if you went to your nfs or whatever storage, you'd see a sh*t ton of meaningless folders and files. No way to tell what anything meant. So if your xenserver config got corrupted/deleted, good luck figuring out what went where. I also found mounting datastores using NFS to be much less tolerant than esxi - any kind of outage, no matter how brief, seemed to require a manual repair of the datastore in the xenserver GUI. Just in general, I found it much less usable.
 
1. The backup APIs have always been licensed features. Always. I'm not sure where you're seeing them neutered?
2. We have no intention of leaving the free / SMB market. Quite the contrary in fact.

I'm completely confused about how you're interpreting all of this - there's a bug on HW10, fair enough - it's getting fixed. There's no evidence for leaving the SMB market.
First, I do appreciate you addressing these concerns, truly. Don't get the wrong idea from my skepticism.

In 2009 VMware forced Veeam (and other partners) to discontinue support for ESXi Free - http://searchservervirtualization.t...-on-free-ESXi-may-prompt-defection-to-Hyper-V

Again, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the information you have been given. Unfortunately, based on experience what you're being told could be very much different than what's being discussed at a strategic/executive level. Internal information control is a huge deal in any large organization, ESPECIALLY in a publicly traded company.

I don't doubt for a second that you believe the information you're sharing is true, and I appreciate you taking the time to share it. I fully realize I could be completely and totally off the mark here.
 
Hey all,

Checked our internal records on the HW10 edit issue, this has already been put on the radar and there are fixes going in place to help with these issues...

Also if you already have a HW10 Machine you can manage via PowerCLI
http://kb.vmware.com/kb/2061336

This. Very much accurate.

Most SMB customers are licensed, and close to 100% virtualized as well. The free version is used far more by the community, home labs, small ROBO offices that just need one box and no central management, etc. They have VC and Essentials or Ess+ licenses, often 3 node clusters (we used to see a lot of 2 node ones, but now everyone is using all 3).

Innocence, there is NO plan to end the free version or limiting its ability to be managed. There is a bug in HW10 right now, but there are long term solutions coming as well.

Thanks both of you for looking into it. Granted I knew there was a solution coming already from second hand sources, but it's good to actually HEAR it for real.
 
They have VC and Essentials or Ess+ licenses, often 3 node clusters (we used to see a lot of 2 node ones, but now everyone is using all 3).
Trying to get some clarification after re-reading this - does this mean it's allowed to run multiple essentials licenses in one organization?

When I asked VMware reps directly, they quickly and loudly said "No, and you'll get a visit from the BSA if you try" which was weird, since I thought EMC dropped out of the BSA a couple years ago.

If it is possible to run multiple Essentials concurrently, that basically solves all problems for $1200 (and I'm shocked nobody brought it up previously).
 
Trying to get some clarification after re-reading this - does this mean it's allowed to run multiple essentials licenses in one organization?

When I asked VMware reps directly, they quickly and loudly said "No, and you'll get a visit from the BSA if you try" which was weird, since I thought EMC dropped out of the BSA a couple years ago.

If it is possible to run multiple Essentials concurrently, that basically solves all problems for $1200 (and I'm shocked nobody brought it up previously).
I think that's because it's right in the store, just takes some poking around to find:
Essentials ($560):
http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/en_US/pd/ThemeID.2485600/productID.282883900

Essentials Plus ($5439):
http://store.vmware.com/store/vmwar...eBIZ_LandingPage_vSphereEssentialsPlus_Buy_US


"This kit includes 6 CPU licenses of vSphere Essentials Plus (for 3 servers with up to 2 processors each) and 1 license for vCenter Server Essentials."
 
I think that's because it's right in the store, just takes some poking around to find:
Essentials ($560):
http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/en_US/pd/ThemeID.2485600/productID.282883900

Essentials Plus ($5439):
http://store.vmware.com/store/vmwar...eBIZ_LandingPage_vSphereEssentialsPlus_Buy_US


"This kit includes 6 CPU licenses of vSphere Essentials Plus (for 3 servers with up to 2 processors each) and 1 license for vCenter Server Essentials."
Thanks for the link - I'm surprised their direct pricing is better than what I'm getting from our reseller (the resellers must love that).

But my question stands - do they send SWAT teams and drone strikes to your server room if you're running 2 Essentials licenses in 1 orginization, for example across 6 servers (in 2 clusters)?
 
1 - How would they know?
2 - Why would they care? The base Essentials license is limited to 3 hosts total and only gives the basic benefits of centralized management. No vMotion or any of the higher functionality. That's enough restriction to keep 90% of SMBs from doing that.

It's as simple as "you gotta pay to play." If you want the functionality, you'll have to pony up for it.
 
1 - How would they know?
2 - Why would they care? The base Essentials license is limited to 3 hosts total and only gives the basic benefits of centralized management. No vMotion or any of the higher functionality. That's enough restriction to keep 90% of SMBs from doing that.

It's as simple as "you gotta pay to play." If you want the functionality, you'll have to pony up for it.
1 - They would know because my organization would buy and register 2 copies
2 - Companies care about all sorts of dumb crap, especially when they have carefully tailored multi-tier licensing structures. I was previously instructed by the VMware direct sales team that it wasn't "allowed" to run multiple Essentials in one organization.

Again, don't care about HA, vMotion, vSheild, vSphere Replication, or vHandjob right now, just need the Hypervisor.
 
Ok, you get points for vHandjob. That made almost make me cover my office wall with Coke.

But my question is what's the point? Are you exploring the possibility of multiple copies of Essentials for separation of management or that it's cheaper? And if the latter is your reasoning what kind of environment has a load requiring 6 hosts but can't afford proper licensing?
 
Ok, you get points for vHandjob. That made almost make me cover my office wall with Coke.

But my question is what's the point? Are you exploring the possibility of multiple copies of Essentials for separation of management or that it's cheaper? And if the latter is your reasoning what kind of environment has a load requiring 6 hosts but can't afford proper licensing?
Yes, cheaper is the goal. $1200 vs. $12,000 is a pretty big gap to clear. Again, cost wouldn't be an issue if I were talking about our IMAP, CRM, ERP, or POS backends. But I'm not. And I can't sneak VMware licensing into any upcoming projects.

Hardware is all fairly low powered (but still under ultra extendo-warranty until late 2014), so that's the reason for low consolidation ratios ATM. Virtual Host hardware investment not in budget for this year or next.
 
1 - They would know because my organization would buy and register 2 copies
2 - Companies care about all sorts of dumb crap, especially when they have carefully tailored multi-tier licensing structures. I was previously instructed by the VMware direct sales team that it wasn't "allowed" to run multiple Essentials in one organization.

Again, don't care about HA, vMotion, vSheild, vSphere Replication, or vHandjob right now, just need the Hypervisor.

Yes you can't run more then one essential copy on one site. There is a essentials RO licenses that do allow to run to run essentials on sites.
 
I wish they would drop vmotion to essential license. Imho it would help compete with Hyper-V that does clustering at no cost (with AD requirements of course)

Where I'm at we use Hyper-V for everything except for one esxi box that runs our cisco CM system. That is going away soon as we are migrating to lync.
Our parent University has a full site license for everything Microsoft related, except for system center server MLs, and datacenter MLs are only $200 a year for us.
VMware really can't compete and we don't need any VMware exclusive features. Of course every environment is different, but Hyper-v is really making inroads in the SMB market.

And while I don't see VMware going away anytime soon, I do like to harass Vmware fans by yelling that VMware is the next Novel :D
 
Again, don't care about HA, vMotion, vSheild, vSphere Replication, or vHandjob right now, just need the Hypervisor.

Then what's the point of this whole discussion? Just pick any old hypervisor if you don't care about any features. There's shitloads of them out there.

Migrate your VMs to VMware Player, the old VMware Server, Hyper-V, KVM, Virtualbox, etc.

Honestly, if you don't care about advanced features and just want a free hypervisor to run VMs on just print up a list and throw a dart at it.
 
Four pages to get to this.

That's what happens when blanket statements are made with no validity. Usually the reasons why I try to stay away from posts like these.
 
First, I do appreciate you addressing these concerns, truly. Don't get the wrong idea from my skepticism.

In 2009 VMware forced Veeam (and other partners) to discontinue support for ESXi Free - http://searchservervirtualization.t...-on-free-ESXi-may-prompt-defection-to-Hyper-V

Again, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the information you have been given. Unfortunately, based on experience what you're being told could be very much different than what's being discussed at a strategic/executive level. Internal information control is a huge deal in any large organization, ESPECIALLY in a publicly traded company.

I don't doubt for a second that you believe the information you're sharing is true, and I appreciate you taking the time to share it. I fully realize I could be completely and totally off the mark here.

I'll grant that - they were using a loophole in the unlicensed version - it wasn't ever supposed to be open. There are ways of doing backups still though (including ghettoVCB or similar solutions). For that matter, simply calling a snapshot switches the locks on the flat files to a write-only lock, which means you can scp the things off somewhere useful. :)

As for the other, I understand your skepticism. Bugs happen - you should have seen the responses to the particular issue at question here; they were quite scathing at times as to why it had to be fixed, and ~now~, and the community response was a big part of that.
 
I wish they would drop vmotion to essential license. Imho it would help compete with Hyper-V that does clustering at no cost (with AD requirements of course)

Where I'm at we use Hyper-V for everything except for one esxi box that runs our cisco CM system. That is going away soon as we are migrating to lync.
Our parent University has a full site license for everything Microsoft related, except for system center server MLs, and datacenter MLs are only $200 a year for us.
VMware really can't compete and we don't need any VMware exclusive features. Of course every environment is different, but Hyper-v is really making inroads in the SMB market.

And while I don't see VMware going away anytime soon, I do like to harass Vmware fans by yelling that VMware is the next Novel :D

I don't disagree with your first point - I'll make sure to mention it.
 
I don't disagree with your first point - I'll make sure to mention it.
It'd be pretty awesome if they did that. I'm not looking forward to purchasing 6.x licenses if I have to buy a higher tier for vMotion. I don't use any of the other options in my home lab (though, I should, especially if I want to seriously pursue this path) at present. I have vShield, View, and vCOPs deployed, but haven't had time to sit down and use them, so their VMs aren't even powered on...
 
Hey you guys/gals with tight VMWare contacts... I just noticed something else...
5.5 converter defaults P2V's to Version 10. Obviously, people should be keeping an eye on each page, but maybe it shouldn't default to 10 just yet?
 
Hey you guys/gals with tight VMWare contacts... I just noticed something else...
5.5 converter defaults P2V's to Version 10. Obviously, people should be keeping an eye on each page, but maybe it shouldn't default to 10 just yet?

It's a trap to make you use the paid version!!!
 
Back
Top