Virtual Reality Check
Both products deliver excellent virtualization
performance, but Hyper-V is hamstrung
by substandard remote management and
limited support for non-Microsoft guest
OSs. VMware’s superior remote management
and broader guest support characterize
the more mature ESX Server.
At this point, for midsized-to-large business
and enterprises, the more manageable
ESX Server is the better choice, particularly
if you want to support a mix of Windows
and Linux guests. Remote management for
Hyper-V is still too problematic. However, Hyper-V is a good choice for smaller businesses
running Server 2008 that primarily
want to virtualize Windows servers. The
product’s inclusion with Windows makes
it simpler to use and adopt: You don’t need
to learn the unfamiliar commands necessary
to deal with ESX Server’s Linux-based
management console. However, because of
the aforementioned remote-management
difficulties, I can’t recommend Hyper-V on
Server Core at this time. That being said,
running Hyper-V on a full Server 2008 installation
works well.
| ESX Server 3.5 PROS: Excellent performance; easy installation;
polished management console CONS: Somewhat limited hardware support RATING: 5 out of 5 RECOMMENDATION: Recommended for
midsized-to-large businesses looking for performance
and manageability. CONTACT: VMware • 877-486-9273 • www.vmware.com |
Virtualization is fast becoming an important
business commodity, with both Microsoft
and VMware essentially providing free
virtualization products. However, raw virtualization
is only half the story. The other
half is management—which is where both
vendors are looking to make their money.
VMware’s VI3 management suite has a
big head start in this area, but Microsoft’s
SCVMM, with its ties to the System Center
family of products, offers unique advantages.
An upcoming issue of Windows IT
Pro will compare Microsoft’s and VMware’s
virtualization-management suites.