Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
May 27, 2008 12:00 AM

Virtualization Shootout, Part 1

Microsoft Hyper-V vs. VMware ESX Server 3.5
Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #98879
Rating: (31)

The Price Is Right
A big difference between VMware’s ESX Server and Microsoft’s Hyper-V is the price. Despite the trend toward free virtualization products, ESX Server has always been a chargeable product and is the staple of VMware’s product line.

The fact that VMware charges for ESX Server hasn’t hindered the product’s adoption. Its performance and robustness have convinced many organizations to use it as their primary virtualization platform. For this review I used the VMware Infrastructure Foundation product, which includes ESX Server 3.5, VMware Virtual Machine File System (VMFS), VMware Virtual Symmetric Multi-Processing (vSMP), the VirtualCenter agent, VMware Consolidated Backup, and VMware Update Manager.

In contrast, Hyper-V is part of the Server 2008 OS, making it essentially free to organizations running Server 2008. Hyper-V is included in the following x64 editions of Server 2008:

  • Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition x64
  • Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition x64
  • Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition x64

Because Hyper-V is a 64-bit technology, you need x64 hardware and you need to run one of the x64 editions of Server 2008. Mysteriously, Microsoft does make three versions of Server 2008 that don’t include Hyper-V (aptly named Windows Server 2008 without Hyper-V)—but the price difference is negligible, at $28. Hyper-V is also not included in Windows Web Server 2008, Windows HPC Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-Based Systems.

Table 2 shows pricing for the two configurations I tested. In each case the system was set up to run eight VMs, all with Server 2008 Enterprise Edition. This table uses retail pricing. Most businesses use Microsoft’s volume licensing, which has a lower cost for the Windows Server OS. Remember that in a production scenario you would also need CALs to access the Windows Server OS. The retail prices in Table 2 include 25 CALs. However, in a production setting you would typically require additional CALs.

Windows Server 2003 R2 and Server 2008 Enterprise Edition allow as many as four active virtual Windows instances at no additional cost. This licensing is the same whether you use Microsoft or VMware virtualization products. Running eight active VMs requires two Server 2008 Enterprise Edition licenses. Although not used in this comparison, Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter Edition and Server 2008 Datacenter Edition allow an unlimited number of virtual Windows instances no matter which virtualization platform you choose.

First Across the Line…
The basic virtualization and feature sets provided by Microsoft’s Hyper-V and VMware’s ESX Server are quite comparable and so far it’s a dead heat. ESX Server offers broader support for more Linux distributions and has a couple of more advanced features, such as support for live migration and shared memory between VMs. However, its command-line management is unfamiliar to most Windows administrators, its limited device support requires a more restrictive hardware platform, and it comes at a higher price than Hyper-V—which is essentially incorporated into Server 2008. Stay tuned for part 2 where I continue this shootout by looking at ESX Server’s and Hyper-V’s advanced systems management and then find out where the rubber meets that road as I run some revealing performance tests.

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • dschroeder
    4 years ago
    Jun 30, 2008

    AnneG-

    I suppose you are doing your job and selling magazines by printing this trash. I think the readers have responded accordingly to the quality of reporting by Mr. Otey. Is the role of the editor of the magazine to verify facts before allowing something to go to print? I am looking forward to part 2 and the reprint of part 1 that corrects ALL of the inaccuracies that Michael has stated. I am not a subsciber of Windows IT Pro and based on this article, I don't see myself being one in the near future.

  • virtualrw
    4 years ago
    Jun 22, 2008

    This article is a joke and the editors of this magazine should be embarrassed to have even published this let alone have it as the cover story. Anyone basic IT person that has touched ESX over the past 7 years can tell that the author knows little to nothing about VMware ESX and is using this article as a platform to falsely promote Hyper-V.
    He tried to be cleaver in his approach by only discussing ESX vs Hyper-V leaving out all the VI3 modules that make VMware what it is today. But I’ll play that game… let just compare the two and also lets say for the sake of allowing people to have opinions that everything in the article is correct (even if we all know most every statement is false). And besides most of the posting have already pointed out where Mr. Otey has gone off his reservation.
    But I want to mention the one difference that he fails to mention throughout this entire article and its actually part of the basic ESX installation and that is the VMFS file system. We can talk all about the modules like VMotion , DRS, HA… none of them can happen without the VMware written VMFS file system. And that is why Hyper-V will never compete on an enterprise level (so the comment of them being is a “dead heat” is the real joke of the article). Hyper-V using NTFS which we all know means only one physical server can communicate with the volume at a time. This is and always will be the limiting factory with Hyper-V until Microsoft create a like product to allow multiple host to share a volume, like VMFS has done for years now, Hyper-V will be nothing more than marketing hype (by inexperienced and bias IT professionals) and a workstation product. Anyone selecting Hyper-V over VI3 of a datacenter deployment for production/mission critical applications is just not looking at the solutions with an objective mind.
    Mr.Otey I’m looking forward to reading part two and seeing how you’re going to make Hyper-V perform better they ESX, which you lead onto at the ending of the article.

  • Bert
    4 years ago
    Jun 21, 2008

    Not up to the usual quality that I expect from Windows IT Pro.

    http://virtualgeek.typepad.com/virtual_geek/2008/06/theres-fud-and.html

  • squirel
    4 years ago
    Jun 20, 2008

    AnneG We look forward to reading the next part. I hope you can convince us that you are not pandering to Micorosoft. VMWare has been around for a long time, we know it, what it does, how it behaves. You don't steal market share by writing articles like this. You undermine yourselves, Microsoft too. Microsoft has to earn its place in this market, so do you. No subscription from me.

  • Anne
    4 years ago
    Jun 20, 2008

    Thanks, readers, for taking the time to give us your feedback on Michael Otey's article. It definitely seems to have struck a nerve with some of you. :-) Michael intends to post an update to the article to address some of the issues raised in your comments. Also, stay tuned for "Virtualization Shootout, Part 2," coming soon.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.