Windows 2012 Hyper-V is the hypervisor for the cloud. VMware’s vSphere is a dead man walking?
In parts One and Two I shared a chunk of what I learned from Aidan Finn‘s enlightening and entertaining session “Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V & VSphere 5.1 – Death Match” delivered at the E2E Virtulisation Conference in Hamburg. We’ve considered pricing, scalability and performance, as well as storage then gone on to consider resource management, security and multi-tenancy and what a flexible infrastructure can give.
Some have found this a useful comparison. Others have highlighted that this isn’t a feature-by-feature comparison and that if it was, the tables would be very different: they would, they’d be longer for a start. But more importantly, would they give the high view that many are focused on? Is the goal a technical Top Trump victory, or alignment to business goals? If aligned, how aligned? A friend used to often quote the difference between cabinet making, carpentry and joinery is effort and measurement: they each had their place, the trick was knowing what level to apply.
In Part III, lets question further Aidan’s premise that Hyper-V kills vSphere. Here we’ll consider High Availability and Resiliency.
Windows 2012 Hyper-V is the hypervisor for the cloud, VMware’s vSphere is a dead man walking?
In Part I I shared a chunk of what I learned from Aidan Finn‘s enlightening and entertaining session delivered at the E2E Virtulisation Conference in Hamburg tastefully titled, “Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V & VSphere 5.1 – Death Match”. In Part I we looked at pricing, scalability and performance, as well as storage in questioning how bold this statement was.
Pure license-cost wise, it more straightforward to run Microsoft Hyper-V than add another licensed hypervisor: note that Hyper-V does have a free offering (although this version doesn’t cover the virtual Windows Server instance licenses). We showed that scalability wise, Hyper-V can better common competition. Storage-wise Hyper-V, as should be expected from the newest offering, supports the newest technology: 4k sector sizes, and had the largest virtual disk support. Still, if you needed greater than 2TB of storage, you could always join multiple 2TB instances together, or bypass limits by mapping a LUN direct to the VM.
Still, besides pricing simplicity, performance improvements, and updated storage what has Microsoft done for the latest version of Hyper-V? In Part II, lets question further Aidan’s premise that Hyper-V kills vSphere.
Windows 2012 Hyper-V is the hypervisor for the cloud, and VMware’s vSphere is a dead man walking. So declared Aidan Finn at a recent virtualization conference in Hamburg during an enlightening entertaining session which he tastefully entitled, “Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V & VSphere 5.1 – Death Match”.
A bold statement? Hyper-V has often been cited as a “nearly ran”; good enough for the SMB space and smaller Private Clouds, but lacking the muscle for a cloud-focused enterprise. Nice for a visit, wouldn’t want to live there.
A biased statement? Aidan Finn is highly regarded Hyper-v Microsoft Most Valuable Professional and regularly writes on his website about changes and features of the product. In Predicatably Irrational, Dan Ariely dedicates a chapter to the possibility of a fan’s judgement being clouded. And yet, the list of features now available in Windows Hyper-V is compelling. Indeed, back in March we discussed if Microsoft would drive a wedge between VMware and EMC with Windows Server 2012 and Hyper-V.
In terms of embedded services and experience, VMware’s vSphere has a significant place in many organisations’ data centres. Licensing alone is unlikely to change hearts and minds to convert, but what about features?
Can Microsoft claim that Hyper-V is the hypervisor for the cloud? What new features are available in the 2012 release, and how does it now compare to vSphere 5.1. More importantly, will these changes drive wider adoption?
In this first installment, we take a look at pricing, scalability, and performance, as well as storage.
One topic that gets discussed quite often is Microsoft Hyper-V vs VMware vSphere, and a quick Google search for comparisons will return at least several hundred thousand hits. There seems to be a large number of posts and articles trying to make a case that one is better than the other by listing and comparing features of the hypervisors themselves one by one. The purpose of this post is not to claim that one platform is better than the other. Is that the best way to really compare the different virtualization technologies as a whole, or should we take a step back and really look at differences in approach for the virtual infrastructure and/or virtual ecosystems?