We looked as MS-VS (Microsoft Virtual Server), and the sluggish management, and low overhead for multiple servers just didn’t make it feesable. The new Hyper-V on 2008 server might be worth a shot, but that’s iffy…assuming it’s available on 2008 Server Core only, then it might compare). The only thing that ESX can’t do well that MS-VS /might/ be able to pull off, is a TS server. I have yet to see a good MSTS server that’s been virtualized.
Until then, I’ll stick with my HA/VMotion/ESX Clustering!]]>
I’ve been running ESX since 2.0 in a large production environment, and I have never seen the issues described here.
Sure ESX is not error free, but VMWare is actually quite fast to provide fixes if you have an error you can reproduce.
I fail to see the cost math here. Sure ESX was expensive when we only had single core CPUs. The price stayed the same with dual core, and with quad core, practically quadrupling your performance per dollar, and making a 1U 2CPU server, 8 core, 50 VMs quite easy to run. You’ll need a 1-day training course to achieve it
I also happen to have extensive experience with the old VMWare GSX series, and I would say Microsoft is on that level still.
ESX is the only REAL production virtualization platform as of today. All others should be viewed as test only until they become more mature (and certainly more feature rich).
Fire that admin and hire someone who knows that they are talking about. I’m an MCSE with a big ESX farm, I am not even considering VS2005. Are you kidding me? The product is no where close to what ESX has accomplished, it has a long way to go. It was a waste of time even testing it.]]>
Each of the two products have its own pros and cons. It seems being free is the main pro for MS, where the number of features and performance is definitly on the VMware side. For a good side by side comparison you can have a look at http://www.itcomparison.com/Virtualization/MS2005R2vsvi3/VirtualizationMS2005R2vsvmware3esx.htm