*excuse the grammatical mistakes, this is more of a cluster of notes I wrote for myself. Feel free to use it as a digestible review of the paper but you should check it out as its quite interesting and deserves review.
Another paper on hyper-v vs vpshere, this time its written by Scott Lowe.
Although that superiority remains largely in place today, the feature gap will ultimately shrink and Hyper-V will become a “good enough "solution for more and more organizations.
The statement above is something some vmware end users have been discussing. With Microsoft closing the gap in the hypervisor market, there are certain features that are needed before many smaller shops will just put their hands up and say, we are with you Microsoft. Cant blame them, as having a solution based on a vendor you already know vs one you may not, even as big as vmware, is always a case for acceptance. Doesn’t need to be better just good enough.
One thing to note, while everyone talks bout how hyperV is free, vmware does also offer a free edition of the hypervisor which people tend to forget. Cost aside, In this comparison of hyopervisors the vmware hypervisro is still more scalable while providing a smaller foot print.
One distinction that the article has clarified is that hyperv really is a type 1 . In type 1 a "virtualization software sits directly atop the hardware, managing access to said hardware". In a type 2 " hypervisor software simply operates like any other host-based program.". As hyper v is a role of 2008 and not a stand alone software that is installed like virtual pc, it is architecturally a type 1.
Another thing that Scott hits upon is that the HCL for windows is much larger than the HCL for vmware. I noticed in other materials that isnt emphasized and glossed over. This article so far seems very fair to vmware and windows's hypervisors. So far memory management is still the area where vmware shines.
With better Oversubscription/Overcommit, Transparent Page Sharing.(dedupe of ram), balloning, and mem compression, vmware wins in the mem category.
One area where vmware is behind MS in in linked clones, called Differencing Disks on the windows side, hyper-v seems to nativly support this model, whereas esxi/vsphere doesn’t nativly support this. Without a method of dedupe on the backend, such as netapp's there can be a lot of storage dedicated to essentially identical files.,
Another category where vmware is doing well is workload migration, with vmotion/svmtion but hyperv is no slouch either with it's Live Migrationtool , and the quick storage migration can place a vm in a save state "for up to a minute" which on a production sys tem may not be acceptable, where as a svmotion can be done wherever you want.
In conclusion, With the release of hperv 3 the gap may clsoe even more. But at the moment the features that vmware has over hyper v still makr it as a winner. The main flaws that ms has to get past are the mem management features as well as workload migration and availability.
0 comments:
Post a Comment