Be the first to like this
[a]-Hyper-V parallels xen.org source and has for some time now and slightly behind with better performance attributed to XenServer due to Paravirtualization versus hardware emulation used by Vmware. However, IMO this is not the only obstacle being nothing compares as of this right from a TCO and ROI to a read-only desktop per unlimited user accounts and using AD and OU per BU to segment policies and conditions relative to the read-only desktop. One should easily get 15 IOPS or less with Windows 7 and 756 MB of RAM with no page file and shared write cache and virtual PVS servers dedicated to streaming having stripped off BOOT.iso to a pair of Linux or Windows TFTP servers (I like Solarwinds) behind a virtual or physical load balanced such as BigIP or Netscaler SDX, or VPX being the down-level VIPs are generally for “infrastructure services and never used by general users but services”. [b]-The other difference is storage requirements. Generally, to use Vmware hardware emulation effectively I must turn on thin provisioning at storage level (preferred); thus, allowing me to over allocate which to me is less preferred then ROL or (my term: resources-on-loan aka dynamic capacity on demand) whereas I can generally get 200% out of a single XenServer host and GNU or Citrix (either one and both are free). [c]-Storage protocol requirements are differing enough to be listed, IMO. Vmware with View is a requirement to use FC direct versus the option on PVS server to now cache and use VDISKs in VHD native format from a NAS share which I recent POC'd originally using 1 server running XenServer and FreeNAS for storage and local SAS drives only for all virtual single-server POC then graduated this to a 2 meter cabinet concept and obtained 7000 vanilla Windows 7 VOS's on my VDI design. Critical design for HA here is the ability to have HA on desktops and infrastructure components by having a single LUN for write-cache and single LUN presented to the streaming PVS servers for VHD's.