What is the primary differences between MS Hypervisor and VMWare Hypervisor?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

What is the primary differences between MS Hypervisor and VMWare Hypervisor?

on

  • 221 views

[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. ...

[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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
221
Views on SlideShare
219
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideee.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

What is the primary differences between MS Hypervisor and VMWare Hypervisor? What is the primary differences between MS Hypervisor and VMWare Hypervisor? Document Transcript

  • What is the primary differences between M$ Hypervisor and VMWare Hypervisor? Night and day. [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. This is real-time HA without need for additional software and no middleman bottleneck to storage infrastructure as with XenDesktop hosted on ESX
  • and having to use Virtual Center but no clear HA for Virtual Center from a dynamic and automated perspective (that I know of). Note: That 7000 is with blades that support xyz RAM whereas using Cisco UCS blades that number in theory can go much higher being streamed desktops are RAM constraints with IOPS to writecache. Actually, I have saved more money by using 15 @ 2U servers with 96 GB RAM ONLY, 2008 R2 64 BIT STANDARD EDITION. I can show where you LOSE session count if going from 96 to 128 or higher on typical HP G5-6+ series and up due to all vendors except Cisco have a hard limit of 96 GB of RAM at 100% BUS SPEED. The instant you go to 128 you lose 30% BUS SPEED from memory to processor and vice versa. Hence, on one occasion I cut OS costs by 50% and hit 425 sessions per 2U server and our cost at GMAC with full HA kit, dual power, dual NICs, dual patch, two cores, patch for iLO, then used digital KVM for secondary entry, RDP made third-way to access every server with iLO being most advantageous back when using virtual CDROM or floppy. I digress – anyway, I have not had the opportunity to test Cisco UCS with FULL 384 GB per BLADE WITH ZERO drop in bus speed. If the technical problems are eliminated or removing the UCS aspect and going with physical blade only I believe we can get 10000 read-only desktops, no applications installed, 20 GB – Win7 – Pagefile, logging, no AV, no inventory agents, only other agent I recommend is the Advanced Client from Liquidware which comes with a free license for Liquid Profiles. Customer originally planned on buying 14 cabinets. I went from 14 to 4 cabinets for 30000 users which there is no way which time zone and shift differentials at 600 sites that system would reach 30000 “concurrent” due to dynamic capacity on demand and advanced algorithms applied for desktop timeout aka resource retention policies and return to shared pool. Must be shared privates cloud scenario where desktops are agnostic to users, licensing is bridged or shared, everything is shared. I would really like a chance to test this although I have used Cisco UCS for several POCs it was Hyper-V on one and ESX on another and could never get approval to try XenServer which Hyper-V and XenServer use the same paravirtualization method and www.xen.org source GNU came first! This is NOT the “which came first, chicken or egg?” Brian Murphy http://www.linkedin.com/in/vcisscloud[1]
  • If you like this article and the others on this site, send me an Invite and if you utilize any of my writings all I ask is a LinkedIn recommendations stating how much money you saved or Agility gained. If you save a LOT of money, there is a place for donations on the main page. You do not have permission to add comments. 1. http://www.linkedin.com/in/vcisscloud