Hyper-V sanity check
Discussion
XenServer is a bit like the proverbial ginger stepchild to me, I always *tried* to like it... and back in the 5.x days I genuinely did embrace it for many of the reasons I posted above about Hyper-V. It was user friendly (in terms of installation and console operation of routine tasks), self contained and did snapshots, clustering and live migration on shared storage, out of the box, for £nothing. You could export VMs easily to SMB shares and take live backups with some scripting. I particularly liked the HP OEM'd version on ProLiant, with the built-in RGS based console redirection so you could flick between VM consoles rather like you were using a KVM switch. Nice ideas in the day.
However it just hasn't taken off and even in the Citrix world its near enough irrelevant, other than for a couple of unique features (multi GPU passthrough, Intellicache) for specific use cases, and also as the hypervisor on Citrix's own SDX/SDN platform which is incerasingly prevalent.
I do hope the next version is impressive and will take a look at it, but I don't expect to see much of it in the 'real world'.
ETA Sorry OP for dragging off topic!
However it just hasn't taken off and even in the Citrix world its near enough irrelevant, other than for a couple of unique features (multi GPU passthrough, Intellicache) for specific use cases, and also as the hypervisor on Citrix's own SDX/SDN platform which is incerasingly prevalent.
I do hope the next version is impressive and will take a look at it, but I don't expect to see much of it in the 'real world'.
ETA Sorry OP for dragging off topic!
Randomthoughts said:
Mapping stuff through USB is a daft thing to base a hypervisor decision on, purely because it stops the machine from being migrated between hosts and any HA events will fail, causing the machine to die.
Of course you are correct, and I certainly don't base my hypervisor decisions around whether it can map USB devices or not.In my particular example - it was just a couple of monitoring boxes that depended on USB devices for monitoring.
ESXi does support migration of USB devices (in the same datacenter) so it's not as daft as it sounds.
theboss said:
XenServer is a bit like the proverbial ginger stepchild to me, I always *tried* to like it... and back in the 5.x days I genuinely did embrace it for many of the reasons I posted above about Hyper-V. It was user friendly (in terms of installation and console operation of routine tasks), self contained and did snapshots, clustering and live migration on shared storage, out of the box, for £nothing. You could export VMs easily to SMB shares and take live backups with some scripting. I particularly liked the HP OEM'd version on ProLiant, with the built-in RGS based console redirection so you could flick between VM consoles rather like you were using a KVM switch. Nice ideas in the day.
However it just hasn't taken off and even in the Citrix world its near enough irrelevant, other than for a couple of unique features (multi GPU passthrough, Intellicache) for specific use cases, and also as the hypervisor on Citrix's own SDX/SDN platform which is incerasingly prevalent.
I do hope the next version is impressive and will take a look at it, but I don't expect to see much of it in the 'real world'.
ETA Sorry OP for dragging off topic!
XenServer is nowhere near irrelevant; I can think of a good 30-40 customers with 1500-2000 VM XenServer deployments.However it just hasn't taken off and even in the Citrix world its near enough irrelevant, other than for a couple of unique features (multi GPU passthrough, Intellicache) for specific use cases, and also as the hypervisor on Citrix's own SDX/SDN platform which is incerasingly prevalent.
I do hope the next version is impressive and will take a look at it, but I don't expect to see much of it in the 'real world'.
ETA Sorry OP for dragging off topic!
It just isn't the right choice for server virtualization!
Randomthoughts said:
Polariz said:
He's overdramatizing but Hyper-V really isn't as good as ESXi. Until you see the price of both anyway...
Overdramatizing? It's not been that bad for the last couple of versions, certainly 2-3 years as a minimum.
Sorry for the poor post there.I really like Hyper-V, its a good product, but ESXi does indeed have the edge in my humble opinion! Hyper-V certainly isn't cack.
Edited by Polariz on Thursday 31st July 23:59
Polariz said:
Andycara is being overdramatic, not you Sorry for the poor post there.
I really like Hyper-V, its a good product, but ESXi does indeed have the edge in my humble opinion! Hyper-V certainly isn't cack.
No I followed - sorry I was unclear; I was suggesting that calling the response overdramatic would be like saying an 80hp S-class was underpowered Sorry for the poor post there.I really like Hyper-V, its a good product, but ESXi does indeed have the edge in my humble opinion! Hyper-V certainly isn't cack.
Edited by Polariz on Thursday 31st July 23:59
TonyRPH said:
Of course you are correct, and I certainly don't base my hypervisor decisions around whether it can map USB devices or not.
In my particular example - it was just a couple of monitoring boxes that depended on USB devices for monitoring.
ESXi does support migration of USB devices (in the same datacenter) so it's not as daft as it sounds.
2012 R2 supports USB pass through, haven't tried it but works fine on Windows 8.1In my particular example - it was just a couple of monitoring boxes that depended on USB devices for monitoring.
ESXi does support migration of USB devices (in the same datacenter) so it's not as daft as it sounds.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff