Guest Sanjay Mehta Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Hi, I am trying to find out which is better in production. Hyper V compared to VMWare ESX 3.5. Has anybody used it? We are a small organisation (SMB). Thanks
Guest Meinolf Weber Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Re: Hyper V compared to VWare ESX Hello Sanjay, Biggest difference is Hyper-V needs 2008, ESX runs directly on the hardware without any OS, ok small linux, but basically direct on the hardware. So please describe what kind and amount of servers/roles/applications should be virtualized. Additional post this to: microsoft.public.virtualserver microsoft.public.virtualpc Best regards Meinolf Weber Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > Hi, > > I am trying to find out which is better in production. Hyper V > compared to VMWare ESX 3.5. > > Has anybody used it? > > We are a small organisation (SMB). > > Thanks >
Guest Meinolf Weber Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Re: Hyper V compared to VWare ESX Hello Sanjay, Here some links about: http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/99218/sql_server_99218.html http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/ArticleID/99218/pg/2/2.html http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisewindows/archives/2008/06/hyperv_gets_att.html Best regards Meinolf Weber Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > Hi, > > I am trying to find out which is better in production. Hyper V > compared to VMWare ESX 3.5. > > Has anybody used it? > > We are a small organisation (SMB). > > Thanks >
Guest Jon Wallace Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Re: Hyper V compared to VWare ESX That's not exactly correct. Both products are in essense hypervisors, the actually OS that runs (linux in ESX, 2008 in Hyper-V) are known as control OS's. Many people are confused by this because you install 2008 and select Hyper-V but actually when you select Hyper-V the machine will first load the hypervisor software and then the OS as a guest os, in exactly the same way ESX does. Both products interact directly with the hardware. The essential different you are looking for when comparing hypervisors is how well the management tools work - this is where the work is done. The hypervisor is a tiny tiny layer that doesn't do much at all - most of the multi-os stuff is actually in the processor itself. Cheers, Jon http://www.insidetheregistry.com ----- "Meinolf Weber" <meiweb(nospam)@gmx.de> wrote in message news:ff16fb66969a8caf87b1dd6d3a0@msnews.microsoft.com... > Hello Sanjay, > > Biggest difference is Hyper-V needs 2008, ESX runs directly on the > hardware without any OS, ok small linux, but basically direct on the > hardware. So please describe what kind and amount of > servers/roles/applications should be virtualized. > > Additional post this to: > microsoft.public.virtualserver > microsoft.public.virtualpc > > Best regards > > Meinolf Weber > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > confers no rights. > ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups > ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to find out which is better in production. Hyper V >> compared to VMWare ESX 3.5. >> >> Has anybody used it? >> >> We are a small organisation (SMB). >> >> Thanks >> > >
Guest kj [SBS MVP] Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Re: Hyper V compared to VWare ESX Just to confuse things more, there's Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V role and Hyper-V Server. The later which is self contained, and does not require a purchase of an OS, just a download from MS. HyperV Server still runs under a Server 2008 kernal but doesn't provide additional server services or capabilities - just virtualization services. Jon Wallace wrote: > That's not exactly correct. Both products are in essense > hypervisors, the actually OS that runs (linux in ESX, 2008 in > Hyper-V) are known as control OS's. > > Many people are confused by this because you install 2008 and select > Hyper-V but actually when you select Hyper-V the machine will first > load the hypervisor software and then the OS as a guest os, in > exactly the same way ESX does. > > Both products interact directly with the hardware. > > The essential different you are looking for when comparing > hypervisors is how well the management tools work - this is where the > work is done. The hypervisor is a tiny tiny layer that doesn't do > much at all - most of the multi-os stuff is actually in the processor > itself. > Cheers, > Jon > > http://www.insidetheregistry.com > > ----- > > > "Meinolf Weber" <meiweb(nospam)@gmx.de> wrote in message > news:ff16fb66969a8caf87b1dd6d3a0@msnews.microsoft.com... >> Hello Sanjay, >> >> Biggest difference is Hyper-V needs 2008, ESX runs directly on the >> hardware without any OS, ok small linux, but basically direct on the >> hardware. So please describe what kind and amount of >> servers/roles/applications should be virtualized. >> >> Additional post this to: >> microsoft.public.virtualserver >> microsoft.public.virtualpc >> >> Best regards >> >> Meinolf Weber >> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and >> confers no rights. >> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups >> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am trying to find out which is better in production. Hyper V >>> compared to VMWare ESX 3.5. >>> >>> Has anybody used it? >>> >>> We are a small organisation (SMB). >>> >>> Thanks -- /kj
Recommended Posts