Hyper V compared to VWare ESX

[Guest Sanjay Mehta]

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]

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]

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]

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]]

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