not to start a fruitless argument...but our hyper-v works great..looking forward to get server2012 r2
but I'd be interested to hear, what makes the others soo much easier...perhaps send me a pm?
Maverick,
No worries... I don't get into flame wars over stuff. I'll keep it in the thread, since the virtualization question comes up fairly often. Hyper-V has it's uses and place, and I'm glad it works for you. It'll get your teams used to all the pros and cons of virtualization, and will help develop skills and knowledge for when you grow into a real hypervisor
.
just joshing with ya!I'll speak from my own experiences and point of view, for what it's worth. There's a place and purpose for all the virtualization solutions, and it's up to the consumers of those solutions to decide what works best for their particular needs.
On the provisioning front, the fact that the KVM VirtIO drivers and VMware's vmxnet3 and pvscsi drivers are included in the Kernel and the init RAM disk (initrd), means that using standard distribution media, you can pxe boot Linux instances and build/provision using a variety of orchestration tools on those hypervisors. With Hyper-V, you either have to build a template that includes the Hyper-V para-virtualized drivers, or spin your own initrd for pxe booting.
Linux's block I/O generally outperforms Windows. We've seen many cases of Windows performing better virtualized on Linux vs Windows on bare metal, because the virtualized instance is taking advantage of the para-virtualized hooks into the host's block I/O and disk cache. So, in the case of Hyper-V, it's going to be limited by Window's I/O subsystems.
On the management side, the management suit for VMware is considerably more full featured than Hyper-V (and most KVM based ones as well, with the exception of the z/Enterprise suite for the z/BX blades). Complex multi-tier applications in data centers often need a lot of policy-based rules for managing requirements and services. Hyper-V can't handle the full gambit...
- Host affinity rules to keep instances running on licensed hosts and processors
- Host anti-affinity rules to keep cluster or tier members off the same hosts
- Workload QoS
- other OS support (Solaris x86, WinNT)
- Stuff like Site Recovery Manager
- scalability, like hundreds of hosts and thousands of VM's
That's just part of what we see where I am, and I deal with 5 hypervisors and 4 hardware architectures as my day gig. My personal opinion is that Hyper-V is good for Windows on Windows virtualization, and small business/small data centre environments. It could work for home use for those who are familiar with it, and can get the licensing at a decent price.
That's my nickel's worth... HTH!
/Mike
