HYPER-V

[Reapt]

Anyone used the free Hyper-V server by windows? They created it to compete with VMware. Its completely free and can have unlimited number of virts running. Is it reliable? As good as Vmware?

Asking because where i work we are trying to set up some new virtuals and the VMware for business's is like $5,000 USD.

Currently we use Virtual box.

 

[carnageX]

Haven't used it, but here's a decent side-by-side IMO:
VMware or Microsoft? Comparing vSphere 5.5 and Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V At-A-Glance - KeithMayer.com - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

 

[Reapt]

That's a very useful link. Thanks for the info. It appears it's better than VMware on almost all fronts. Can't wait to test it out on one of our test bed servers tomorrow ;D

 

[carnageX]

It is a TechNet blog post though, so take what you read there with a grain of salt IMO . It could be that they're shining the light more brightly on Hyper-V since it's an M$ product.

 

[Lexluethar]

It's not free either - hyper-v is a licensed product that comes with the version of server you are running. Realize hyper-v with Server 2008 R2 standard doesn't do you a ton of good in a corporate environment because you can only (by MS licensing) run 1 VM. With Enterprise you get 4 VM's and with Datacenter you get unlimited.

So sure, if you want to run a few VM's in your current environment you probably could. If you really want an enterprise solution comparable to vmware you have to compare the datacenter version of the OS - something that will run you over 5k (roughly 6k).

Edit:
So depending on if you have 2008 R2 or 2012 environment the licensing is a little tricky. Regardless if you want unlimited VM's you will have to have the datacenter version of the OS which will run you 6k.

 

[PP Mguire]

Hm I learn something new every day. I did not know M$ limits VM use to certain licensed versions of server OS.

<--- Never used Hyper-V before.

 

[Lexluethar]

Most ppl dont realize that bc you can add the hyper v role on most (standard version and up) versions of server but you are limited to the vm instances within that hyper v environment.

 

[office politics]

Most ppl dont realize that bc you can add the hyper v role on most (standard version and up) versions of server but you are limited to the vm instances within that hyper v environment.

I think you might be confusing people. You're allowed to run as many windows servers that you are licensed to run. The company I worked for runs 2008 R2 Ent with more than 8 vms.

The limits Lex are referring to is how many vm instances you can run with the base license. So if I buy a new server with a 2008 r2 standard license, then I can install windows on the physical server and I can install another instance to run as a vm. I can buy more licenses for windows server to install into new vms

there are some limits for hyper-v

As far as the hyper-v vs VMware decision, I would spec out what you want the environment to be able to do. We decided against VMware because of cost and the low amount of servers we wanted to run on the system. VMware mgmt tools are king as well. I hear their DR product is pretty good once you get it setup. one click recovery. They also have a software that powers on and off physical servers when the load demands it. Really cool. Microsoft still has some catching up to do. Also, think about what other environments do you work with. Do they run VMware. It may make your life easier to do the same.

 

[Lexluethar]

OP - you are right, sorry if my explanation was a bit confusing.