vmware & hyper-v gurus - i need some advice please

T

troyquigley

Guest
here is what i am looking to do with our NEW network.

i am currently looking at 2 options:

1. 2 servers both running vmware esxi as the host os (looking at the poweredge t610 - should work with ESXI)
both of the above servers running 2 virtual servers of windows server 2003 on each physical server

2. 2 servers both running windows server 2008 r2 with hyper-v as the host os (same server as above)
both of the above servers running 2 virtual servers of windows server 2003 on each physical server

i want to take my current 4 physical servers and move them to 2 physical servers (each server would have 2 virtualized servers on it)

i want to then create a new virtual windows server 2008 r2 server on each physical server

so in the end i could slowly phase out the 4 windows 2003 virtual servers and move to the 2008 r2 virtual servers.

which option is less prone to issues ?

is it possible to use an external usb hdd as my backup solution for the virtual images for vmware and hyper-v


current: 4 physical 2003 servers
option 1 or 2: 2 physical servers running 4 virtualized 2003 servers
future: 2 physical servers running 2 virtualized 2008 r2 servers
 
I think Hyper-V may be easier for the backup solution you want using the USB hdd. For such a small setup of VM's though it may come down to what you prefer to use and manage.

Edit:
You may want to take into account what you already have for MS licensing though too. If you go with Hyper-V you'll need 2 Windows server licenses.
 
Last edited:
Vmware workstation 7 on each physical, running an x64 host OS of your choice. Two VMs per physical box, using Converter to P2V your current physical machines. Dump your VMs to USB through regular host OS USB connectivity. This also gives you the ability to map the USB drive directly to the VMs for 1:1 backups, should you decide you want file level back software running inside the VMs. This also gives you VM snapshotting capabilities, and you could migrate these P2V migrated VMs directly to ESX or ESXi, should you need to down the road. It will cost you 2 workstation licenses.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
"And esxi is free... but the backup options would be harder."
that was my concern going with vmware. backups and learning a whole new virtual environment.

if i go with hyper-v, it is all windows based, and i would assume less prone to compatibility issues.

what kind of server utilization cost/speed difference would i see from vmware host VS. windows server 2008 r2 using hyper-v. would the speed difference be very much for the virtual servers ?
 
Learning the environment is easy. Very much so. And after being the leader in virtualization for a decade, I think we can say that VMware has worked out every compatibility issue ;)
 
so vmware is just as good a solution as hyper-v ?

ESXI:
what about backing up the virtual server image each day ?
what about making sure the raid controller is on the approved list.
 
Well, VMware owns 95% of the virtualization market... I'll let you decide ;)

There are ways to back up VMs easily on ESXi - just not to an external USB drive ~on~ that system. You'd need an NFS share or the like.

Raid controller - you're buying a real server right, not some cheap thing? It'll be on the list. Check the HCL to make sure.
 
Still think this is going to be hard to do on vmware. I'm starting to lean towards Hyper-V. Vmware may have been doing this for awhile, but if you aren't matching up with what they have on the HCL, it can be a pain to work with (let alone get installed).

I myself went with VMWare after testing with Hyper-V. But I also had to shell out some more money for a "real" RAID controller, better NICs, etc. that were on the HCL to ensure I would have all the supported features.

With Hyper-V it's like..."If you can install Windows on it, everything else works".
 
Tarrant64 said:
Still think this is going to be hard to do on vmware. I'm starting to lean towards Hyper-V. Vmware may have been doing this for awhile, but if you aren't matching up with what they have on the HCL, it can be a pain to work with (let alone get installed).

I myself went with VMWare after testing with Hyper-V. But I also had to shell out some more money for a "real" RAID controller, better NICs, etc. that were on the HCL to ensure I would have all the supported features.

With Hyper-V it's like..."If you can install Windows on it, everything else works".
Click to expand...

that right now seems to be my frame of mind.
windows might be late to the virtualization game, but they have a good job with hyper-v from what i have read.

can anyone give me reasons to take vmware OVER hyper-v
what are some REAL advantages ?
 
troyquigley said:
that right now seems to be my frame of mind.
windows might be late to the virtualization game, but they have a good job with hyper-v from what i have read.

can anyone give me reasons to take vmware OVER hyper-v
what are some REAL advantages ?
Click to expand...

You mean other than all the features it has that hyper-v doesn't? But for something of this size, there are not as many, other than learning it in case you want to use it later on in your career.
 
Erm more to the question is what are you using these servers for - specifically load wise since with virtualisation that will determine your capacity. Also why 2 boxes? other than physical redundancy why can you not consoliate onto a single box? especially considering that the T610 is a dual socket machine which can have redundant power supplies.
 
"Also why 2 boxes? other than physical redundancy"
exactly

people mention features that wmware has that hyper-v doesnt, but what are these features that i would actually use ?
 
lopoetve said:
You mean other than all the features it has that hyper-v doesn't? But for something of this size, there are not as many, other than learning it in case you want to use it later on in your career.
Click to expand...

I'm building a Hyper-V environment for my employer. We looked at Vmware but being a small non-profit we couldn't stomach the cost when we could use Hyper-V for the cost of hardware with our current Microsoft agreement.

Your right ESXi defiantly has the better feature set but that comes at a price. For small Microsoft only environments I can't find a reason to use Vmware. If was was building a corp environment or money was no object I would run with Vmware no questions asked.
 
troyquigley said:
"Also why 2 boxes? other than physical redundancy"
exactly

people mention features that wmware has that hyper-v doesnt, but what are these features that i would actually use ?
Click to expand...

depends on if you're using the free version or a licensed version with vcenter.
 
i was looking at using esxi (free)
i am trying to keep costs down

we would be totally new to virtual environments here. i dont want to dump a bunch of money on something that wont have a cost benefit for a company our size

4 servers
30 workstations
6 laptops
30 latops that send order via vpn - they do not login to the server - so they dont really even count.
 
troyquigley said:
i was looking at using esxi (free)
i am trying to keep costs down

we would be totally new to virtual environments here. i dont want to dump a bunch of money on something that wont have a cost benefit for a company our size

4 servers
30 workstations
6 laptops
30 latops that send order via vpn - they do not login to the server - so they dont really even count.
Click to expand...

Hyper-V will do what you want, and well. The cost of entry is far lower than Vmware(aside from esxi, etc). And it has room to expand if necessary. MS has some very exciting additions coming to virtualization int he near future.
 
DeChache said:
We looked at Vmware but being a small non-profit we couldn't stomach the cost when we could use Hyper-V for the cost of hardware with our current Microsoft agreement.
Click to expand...

I too work for a small non-profit in healthcare, and we went with VMware (over Hyper-V an Xen) for several reasons. Reliability and support were most important. We did go with the full-meal-deal version, but it has truly paid off. We were able to easily migrate our Novell Netware server (something that no other product supported well at the time), and our uptime has simply been excellent. By excellent, I mean zero downtime for all VMs for more than a year. Even through monthly ESX security patches which require host reboots, it's as simple as right-click -> remediate. Sit back and watch as your hosts patch themselves and push around the VMs as needed. Some thing else that is cool, if you decide you need to move a VM's storage to another LUN - no problem, storage vMotion to the rescue with no downtime. All of this was production ready before these features were even a twinkle in MS's eye. And excellent linux support is especially important to me, again something Hyper-V wasn't too keen about at the time.

I guess my real point is that, VMware can do anything you want and do it now. And the investment made pays for itself in reliability, no downtime, and excellent support. Heck - do you see any MS Hyper-V storage engineers lurking these forums? ;) @ lopoetve
 
My final input is that Hyper-V would have been a solution for my company if it had features that gave true 100% uptime. If that wasn't a requirement of my company I may very well have gone with Hyper-V without regrets.

I think for you to really get anything out of VMWare you have to go the full licensed version - and to really utilize all it's features you're talking 2-3 hosts - I think vSphere is where it's at with Vmware - Vmotion, V storage Motion, Fault Tolerance - all of that is what I bought into and it works. $$$ though.

My vote for you - in such a small environment, and non-profit - is Hyper-V.
 
SpaceHonkey said:
I too work for a small non-profit in healthcare, and we went with VMware (over Hyper-V an Xen) for several reasons. Reliability and support were most important. We did go with the full-meal-deal version, but it has truly paid off. We were able to easily migrate our Novell Netware server (something that no other product supported well at the time), and our uptime has simply been excellent. By excellent, I mean zero downtime for all VMs for more than a year. Even through monthly ESX security patches which require host reboots, it's as simple as right-click -> remediate. Sit back and watch as your hosts patch themselves and push around the VMs as needed. Some thing else that is cool, if you decide you need to move a VM's storage to another LUN - no problem, storage vMotion to the rescue with no downtime. All of this was production ready before these features were even a twinkle in MS's eye. And excellent linux support is especially important to me, again something Hyper-V wasn't too keen about at the time.

I guess my real point is that, VMware can do anything you want and do it now. And the investment made pays for itself in reliability, no downtime, and excellent support. Heck - do you see any MS Hyper-V storage engineers lurking these forums? ;) @ lopoetve
Click to expand...


We are a Microsoft only shop. Vmotion is the only real plus I can see in my situation. I only have a single SAN and 2 servers. I have the Hyper-V boxes clustered. They will do live migration but it isn't as smooth or nice as Vmware.

Like I said above Vmware is the better product in most regard but when price becomes a factor and your only running Microsoft servers. Hyper-V works pretty good. I wish I had the budget for a full Vmware setup. But for my purposes Hyper-V has impressed me as a whole.
 
Well first off, VMware ESX can do more than hyper-v, but that comes at a pretty steep cost.
Also i dont know what licensing agreement if anything you have with MS, but when you buy 2008 Datacenter w/ your new server you can install as many virtual instances as you want on that host.

Bottom line for a small microsoft only shop where ease of management is key, i dont see a real reason to go with ESX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top