Processor Virtualization Comparison VMWare ESXi vs Microsoft Hyper-V

Processor Virtualization Comparison-
VMWare ESXi vs Microsoft Hyper-V
VIRTUALIZATION
MSc Cloud Computing
National College of Ireland
Blesson Babu
15029468
ABSTRACT: Virtualization is the one that allows
the physical machine resources that to be shared
between different virtual machines (VMs). They
are so provided by a software layer called as the
hypervisor or Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM).
Hence, the hypervisor abstracts the hardware from
operating system such that allows many operating
system to be run concurrently on the same
hardware. Many different types of the hypervisors
are present in the market today namely both the
open source and commercial they are widely used
in the parallel and distributed computing. The goals
of the hypervisor are of the same such that the
underlying technology would be varying.
In this paper we will be discussing about the
processor comparison about VMware Esxi and
Microsoft Hyper-V. In the case, Hyper-V server are
the micro-kernelized hypervisors are of the
leverage para-virtualization together with the full-
virtualization/hardware assisted is to be
approached. As VMware ESXi is the monolithic
hypervisor that supports full-
virtualization/hardware assisted approach. In this
paper, we will be checking the performance
comparison of both VMware ESXi and Microsoft
Hyper-V hereby, we will be using the LINPACK
tool so as to compare the performance comparisons
of both and check so which one relatively performs
better.
1.INTRODUCTION:
Virtualization technology is the one that provides
the organisations with a wider range of benefits [1].
Virtualization is an efficient solution that provides
the optimal use of hardware and it improves it
reliability and security. This technology is useful in
introducing the software abstraction layer between
the hardware that is underlying below that is the
physical platform/host and the operating system of
the guest VM is that it will be including the
applications that will be running top of it [2]. The
software abstraction layer is known as the Virtual
machine monitor or the hypervisor [1].
The Hypervisors are generalized in such a way that
they are grouped so into two classes. The
hypervisor that running directly on the system is
type 1 hypervisor and they are referred as the bare-
metal hypervisor and the type 2 hypervisor is the
one running conventionally with the operating
system environment and so referring it as the
hosted hypervisor.
It shows cases the direct accessibility to the
hardware resources such that they can indirectly go
through an operating system, a bare-metal
hypervisor is said to be efficient rather than the
hosted architecture and such that it delivers the
greater scalability, robustness and the performance
[3].
The type1 is the bare metal hypervisor categorised
into two subcategories that is monolithic and
micro-kernelized design thus, to differentiate
between them is that of dealing with the device
drivers. The Microsoft Hyper-V is the one that
leverages Para virtualization with the full
virtualization while the VMware ESXi is the
monolithic hypervisor that leverages the hardware
emulation that is full-virtualization [4].
quantitative performance comparison between the
two hypervisors that is VMware Esxi and
Microsoft Hyper-V. The Giga floating point
operations per second is to measure the
performance of the computer and thus, LINPACK
is useful in comparing the performance of two
hypervisors and in analysing which one gives the
comparatively better performance whether
Microsoft Hyper-v or VMware ESXi .
The Goals of Virtualization are: [13]
 Increase in the number of the application
could be supporting, such that allowing
multiple instances in running different
machines simultaneously.
 Decrease in time it takes for the
application in running by the segments

either data or applications such that
spreading the work to many systems.
 Optimize the usage of single system
Allowing in working harder and more
Intelligently.
 Increase in the reliability or the
availability of the application.
2.PROBLEM DEFINITION AND
BACKGROUND:
problem definition and the background. The
Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware ESXi both are of
type 1 hypervisors they possess the key
architectural difference between the each. In such
case, most of the administrators are so confused
such that the Hyper-V will be operating as the
hypervisor on the host operating system.
The important role of Hyper-V such that it enables
through the server manager, as the case of the code
of the hypervisor is that they are actually
configured to the starting of the Windows Kernel
space. The components running on the kernel space
would be hereby, allowing the direct accessibility
to the hardware and such that it also applies to the
Hyper-V.
In the case, both the Hyper-V and ESXi are of the
type 1 hypervisors such that it would be running
directly on top of the hardware such that it would
be classifying it into one of the two hypervisors,
microkernelized and the monolithic. The only
difference between them is the both are of the
location of the device drivers and the controlling
function.
2.1 MONOLOTHIC VS
MICROKERNALIZED:
The methodology of the case of the bare-metal
hypervisor is the one that would be allocating the
available resources and such that they would be
handling usage driver and hence, it would be
depending so whether so the hypervisor is of
Micro-kernelized or the Monolithic hypervisor [5].
The Monolithic hypervisor is the VMware ESXI
such that it would be handling all of the hardware
accessibility for each of the VM. The device
drivers are of case for all the hardware that the
VMs would be requiring the need of the
accessibility. As of the case of the device drivers
will be residing within the hypervisor, as the
VMware has to decide whether the systems will be
supporting the hypervisor and hence it has decided
it supports or not. The VMware ESXI would be
only running on the selective number of the
systems [5].
The monolithic hypervisor possesses of the
advantage that it does not possess a host operating
system. In the case of the operating system
platform would be supporting the virtual operating
systems runs on the hardware [7]. The drawbacks
of that it possesses the limitations of supporting the
hardware and there are instable features among
them [7].
The micro-kernelized hypervisor would possess the
advantage such that they will not be incorporating
with the device drivers in the hypervisor kernel, the
disadvantage of the requirement is such that
installing the operating system is in partitioning the
parent in the case hypervisor would be operated. If
the operating system would be in crashed state for
some reason, then all the VMs will be crashed [8].
Figure: Microkernelized hypervisor vs
Monolithic Hypervisor [6]
2.2 APPORACHES TOWARDS
VIRTUALIZATION
As x86 architecture has gained popularity for the
computer architecture as in the case of the
enterprise datacentres that are often found in the
present trend. The Virtualization of x86
architecture has been categorised into two methods
[2] that is full-virtualization or para-virtualization.
The full-virtualization has been designed in
providing total abstraction of the physical system
that is lied under and hence, it turns useful in
creating the complete virtual system as of the case
guest operating systems could be executed [2]. As
the approaches of virtualization would be relying
on the binary translation so they would be trapping
and so the case of virtualizing the execution of
certain sensitive and the non-virtualize instructions
[2]. As of the case of Binary translation would be
incurring performance would be large performance
as over heading the comparison such that the
virtual machines running on the native virtualized
architecture [9].

As the case of para-virtualization approach is
useful in modifying the guest operating system
such that they would be able so in eliminating the
need of binary translation [10]. As so, they would
be involved in the replacing of the privileged
operations that runs on ring 0 of the CPU with calls
to the hypervisor known as the hypercalls [2]. As of
the result, the guest kernels are aware so that they
would be executed on the virtual machine thus,
allows the native performance [11] as this
approaches for it would be typical such that
limiting the support for the open source operating
systems such as the Linux. As the hardware
assistance for virtualization as that would be a
platform in approach that would be enabling
efficient full virtualization with the help of
hardware capabilities and thus, so reducing the
need to the para-virtualized guest operating system
[9].
Figure: Comparison between virtualization
approaches [2]
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this literature review we will discussing about
the Processing virtualization used here. We will be
discussing about both the hypervisors namely
Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware ESXi. In the next
part we will discussing the tool used so as to
measure the performance of both hypervisors so its
usage becomes effective. So the description of each
of them is illustrated below.
3.1 PROCESSING VIRTUALIZATION: In this
processing virtualization the hardware and the
software technology will be hiding the physical
hardware configuration such that from the system
services, operating systems or applications [13]. As
the processing virtualization is the one such that it
makes one system appearing to be many or such
that the many systems would be appearing it to be
many or such that the many systems would be
appearing as the single computing resource such as
the achieving goals so that ranges from the raw
performance, high levels of availability, availability
and agility.
The processing virtualization is the preferred
approach [13]:
 Greater application isolation: As the
organisation need of the workloads in the
different machines virtual machine
software is the form of processor
virtualization such that it makes it possibly
to running different operating system on
same physical system simultaneously.
 Operating system independence: Virtual
machine software is the one, form of the
processing virtualization such that it
makes it possibility in running the several
different operating system as the physical
system simultaneously.
 Improved performance or scalability: As
the organisations need single application
such as running faster as possible than the
usage of single system.
 Improved scalability: As organisation
would be doing the need of single
application such that running faster so it
would be possibility of using single
system as the virtual systems will be
handling the tasks significant faster.
 Optimization: As the organizations needs
so is managing costs by optimizing the
usage of physical systems.
 Cost reduction: The virtual machine or
operating system virtualization and the
portioning software such as they could be
moved to the multiple physical workloads
to the single machine. Hence, this would
turn to be beneficial for the organizations.
These are the best goals for the
organization in pursuing these goals.
Figure: Processing virtualization [13]
As the first generation of Intel Virtualization
technology [12] for the IA-32 and the Itanium
processor that turns useful so providing the
support for the hardware such that it simplifies
the processor virtualization, it enables so the

reducing in the virtual machine monitor
software size and the complexity. As of the
case VM would be supporting so the wider
range of operating systems such that on the
physical platform with maintenance of the high
performance. As the Intel VT-x and VT-I is
useful so, in solving the virtualization
challenges. It hereby, useful in solving the
address space compression problems such that
the VT-x transition between the guest software
and VMM would be changing the linear
address space [12]. The Intel VT-X
architecture features exception handling,
Interrupt Virtualization and interrupt
virtualization [12]. Virtualization technology
for the VMware probably useful as they could
be useful in portioning of the single computer
into the several independent computers such
that allowing the systems in running of the
several operating system that runs so in
parallel. The multi-core technology allowing
the single processor having more than one
physical processor inside [12]. The Intel
Virtualization technology largely supports
processing virtualization.
3.2 MICROSOFT HYPER-V:
As the Microsoft Hyper-V architecture [2] is
on the basis of the micro-kernelized
hypervisors it is an approach on the basis of
the host operating system hence it is referred to
as the parent partition, providing the features
of the management and the drivers for the
hardware [2].
Figure: Hyper-V Architecture [2]
As the Microsoft Hyper-V implementing the
isolation of the virtual machines as in the terms
for partition as the hypervisor instance would
be having only one parent partition and it
would be having the direct access to the
hardware devices [2]. As the child partitions is
not having the direct access to the hardware as
the Hyper-V can host two categorises of the
operating system in child partitions namely
enlightened and unenlightened operating
system [2].
3.3 VMWare ESXi
The VMware Vsphere is the software that would be
suiting any of the software components such as
vCenter, ESXi and the Sphere Client [2]. As in the
case of vSphere the hypervisor is in the form of
VMware ESXi that is of the type 1 hypervisor. In
the case so as in installing and managing and
accessing the virtual server that sits above the ESXi
server and the other part of the vSphere that suits
called the vSphere Client [2].
In the case of ESXi, VMware could be used as the
Linux-derived service [2] console such that it
would be providing the interactive environment
such that the users would be in situation in
interaction with the hypervisor. The Linux based
service console it would be including the service
that are found in the traditional operating system
such as the firewall, SNMP (Simple Network
Management Protocols) agents and the webserver
[2].
Figure: VMware ESXi Architecture [2]
3.4 LINPACK
As the LINPACK [14] is the popular
benchmarking tool used in measuring the
system performance in FLOPS (Floating point
operation per second) FLOPS as the LINPACK
contains the inbuilt FORTRAN subroutine that
is hereby suitable useful in solving the linear
equations [14].
As the LINPACK benchmarking tool it is built with
the Basic Linear Algebra Libraries for the matrix
related operations [14]. As the major reason for
using the LINPACK tool is that it is useful in
calculating the time and speed so as solving the real
problems. As the LINPACK is useful when so
performing the larger number of the floating
operations per second so as to determine which one
is the best machine.

As Jack.J. Dongarra [14] is the benchmarking
package such that it contains package extra of the
linear algebra for the numerical calculations.
MFLOPS [14] is the megaflops concerned it would
be including the millions of the critical floating
point operations. As the loop would be including
unrolling method. As the LINPACK would be
including loop in the unrolling method, such that
related so in measuring the CPU frequency. Vector
tool is useful in managing the reuse of data using
the special algorithm [14]. LINPACK benchmark
was invented in the year 1979 [14]. As per Jack.J.
Dongarra [14] points out that calculating
computing system performance is the critical thing
and it depends on multiple things.
Advantages of LINPACK:
 It is used in measuring speed in
Multiprogramming.
 It is more accurate than other
Tools.
 It can be useful in comparing
One PC with another.
 Performance of Virtual machine.
Disadvantages of LINPACK:
 It does not adapt itself according to
the instance specification.
 Not fully utilizing complete set of the
resources.
4. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF
MICROSOFT HYPER-V AND VMware ESXi
The components used here for the comparison of
VMware ESXi and Hyper-V are:
 VMware Workstation 12.0
 ESXi Hypervisor
 Ubuntu operating system 16.04
 vSphere Client
 Windows Server 2016 R2 x64
 Microsoft Hyper-V
The Giga Floating Point Operations per
Second it is hereby, used in measuring
computer performance.
4.1 VMWARE ESXi BENCHMARK
As in the case we will be using the VMWARE
ESXi Benchmark. In the case we will be using
LINPACK tool so as to measure the performance
of the linear equation of each is measured. The
GFlops are hereby used in measuring the
performance summary of each.
So in the case of VMWARE ESXi so will be
installed in the virtual machine 12.0. So as the case
VMWARE ESXi 6 will be installed in the virtual
machine. The VMWARE ESXi 6 will be installed
and then DHCP will be generated. The DHCP will
be generated so as to measure the performance of
each.
Figure: VMWARE ESXi 6 installed in the
Virtual Machine
Then as of the case after the DHCP address is
generated. With that IP address we able to Login
into the VMware vSphere Client with the username
and the password. Hence, we could login to the
vSphere Client.
Figure: VMware vSphere Client
In the VMWARE VSphere Client will be
downloaded Ubuntu 16.04 is installed in it. The
Linpack tool is used here so as measure the
performance of each. Thus, we will be giving the
number of equations to solve is 8000.
The Average performance it will be produced is
13.4813 and in the case the maximal is 14.5265.
Thus, the Benchmark results are shown and their
performance is illustrated as shown in the figure
below.

FIGURE: RESULTS OF ESXi BY USING THE
LINPACK TOOL
4.2 MICROSOFT HYPER-V BENCHMARK
As the case of Microsoft Hyper-V is installed in the
Windows Server 2016 is installed in the virtual
machine. As in the Windows Server the Hyper-V
has been installed. The Hyper-V manager is as
shown. The LINPACK benchmarking tool is used
to measure the performance.
The Windows Server 2016 the Hyper-V manager is
opened. As of the case the Hyper-V is shown in
that we would be installing the Ubuntu 16.04 by the
usage of LINPACK tool it is so measure the
performance of it. The Hyper-V performance is
thus, show cased.
FIGURE: HYPER-V MANAGER
In the Hyper-V Manager we will be opening the
console. As the console is opened in that the
Ubuntu is installed in that we will be LINPACK
tool so as to measure the performance.
As per the below diagram illustrated outcome the
Average 10.9200 and the Maximal 11.6346. Thus,
the benchmarking results are as show cased above.
Here the result of 8000 operations is shown and
hereby 4 trials have been run. With the LINPACK
Tool we can analyse so which is the better
performance.
FIGURE: RESULTS OF HYPER-V BY USING
LINPACK TOOL
5. SECURITY REPORT
The steps for securing the hypervisor are the
following as mentioned below [15]:
 Separate Management and VM
Traffic: The most important and thus,
the easiest aspect of securing the
virtualized infrastructure is so kept
that the management network and
virtual machine that the data network
are physically secured.
 Responsibility with VLAN access:
VLANS are useful so in keeping the
traffic that is segregated among
networks.
 Keeping up to date with the
hypervisors patches: As the
hypervisors are essential as the thin
software lies so between the virtual
machine hardware so they are
essential in cutting down the cost.
 Turn off unnecessary services: In
reducing so attack on the surface of
the hypervisor is important. As some
of the hypervisors often tend to
attacked on the larger attacking
surface. As the VMware vSphere
possess some of the useful feature
called as the Lockdown mode as it
would be preventing it from any
unauthorized access that directs the
hosts and thus, it forces the
management to the vCentre
management server.
5.1 HYPERVISOR SECURITY
The hypervisor security turns useful so such as:
 Enabling Firewalls: The firewalls must be
enabled such that in allowing the
connective connection. In the case the
servers are logically segregated from each

other, as they are routed so between the
network is the firewall.
 Putty for Secure Login: As in the case for
secure login the putty is used for the
secure authentication. The secure login
through Putty turns in useful.
 Network file System: In the case, the
network share is being expanding
dynamical that the storage file supporting
it does not have the impact of the ESXi.
As the case of network file system they
would not be supporting multipathing and
it shows the high availability as needed
managing physical network layer as
bonded networks on ESXi.
5.2 GUEST OS
As the case of guest OS is that:
 Checking Security updates regularly: As
the case of guest OS there is need for
updating the security regularly.
 Enabling firewall in guest OS: As the
case of the guest operating system the
firewalls should be enabled. The firewall
should be enabled.
 Checking System logs regularly: As the
case of that the system logs should be
checked regularly. So it is an essential
one.
As in the case of guest operating system all the
above steps should be enabled.
6. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULT
As per the analysis of comparing the benchmarks
of VMware ESXi and Microsoft Hyper-V. As of
the case we will be analysing the result for 8000
operations and the LDA is 8000 and it is the 4
alignments and the four trials have been run. Below
the average and maximal performance of VMware
ESXi and Microsoft Hyper-V.
Hypervisors Average Maximal
VMware
ESXi
13.4813 14.5265
Microsoft
Hyper-V
10.9200 11.6346
The analysis of the result as per the table the
Average and maximal values are illustrated above.
The graph gives a clear view of the difference of
performance of both the ESXi and Hyper-V.
As per the performance concerned of both the
hypervisors. The VMware ESXi gives the better
performance.
7. CONCLUSION
As in the present scenario there are numerous
virtualizing platforms ranging from the open source
hypervisors to the commercial ones. This paper
gives the performance comparison between the
leading two hypervisors that is the Microsoft
Hyper-V and VMware ESXi. As the case of
Microsoft Hyper-V are the micro-kernelized are the
hypervisors that leverages para-virtualization with
full virtualization as the case of ESXi is the case of
monolithic hypervisor that is leveraging
approaching full virtualization.
As, of the case we would come to a conclusion that
ESXi gives the better performance as compared to
that of Microsoft Hyper-V.
REFERENCES:
[1.] Fatma Bazargan, Chan Yeob Yeun, Mohamed
Jamal Zemerly, State-of-the-Art of Virtualization,
its Security Threats and Deployment Models,
International Journal for Information Security
Research (IJISR) Volume 2, Issues 3/4,
September/December 2012.
[2.] Hasan Fayyad, Luc Perneel, Martin
Timmerman, Benchmarking the performance of
Microsoft Hyper-V Server, VMware ESXi and Xen
Hypervisors, Journal of Emerging Trends in
Computing and Information Services Volume 4,
No.12, December 2013.

[3.] VMWare, “Understanding Full virtualization,
Para virtualization and hardware Assist,” 2007.
Available:
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware_paravir
tualization.pdf.
[4.] EdwinYuen, How would explain the core
differences in Hyper-V from VMware’s offerings?,
http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswe
rs/how-would-explain-the-core-differences-
inhyper-v-from-vmwares-offerings/, 2009.
[5.] Andy Syrewicze, VMware vs. Hyper-V:
Architectural
Differences,http://syrewiczeit.com/vmware-
vshyper-v-architectural-differences/, 2013.
[6.] A. Finn and P. Lownds, Mastering Hyper-V
Deployment, Wiley Publishing Inc.
[7.] Contel Bradford, Virtualization Wars:
VMware vs.Hyper V: Which is Right For Your
Virtual Environment?,
http://www.storagecraft.com/blog/virtualizationwar
s-vmware-vs-hyper-v-which-is-right-for-
yourvirtual-environment/, 2013.
[8.] Nirmal Sharma, Hyper-V and VMware
vSphere Architectures: Pros and Cons,
http://www.serverwatch.com/servertutorials/micros
oft-hyper-v-and-vmware-vspherearchitectures-
advantages-and-disadvantages.html,2013.
[9.] Wikipedia, Hardware-assisted virtualization,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwareassisted_virt
ualization, 2013.
[10.] VMware, A performance comparison of
hypervisors,www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_per
formance.pdf.
[11.] Virtuatopia, An Overview of Virtualization
Techniques,
http://www.virtuatopia.com/index.php/An_Overvie
w_of_Virtualization_Techniques.
[12.] Intel® Virtualization Technology: Hardware
Support for Efficient Processor Virtualization, Gil
Neiger, Corporate Technology Group, Intel
Corporation Amy Santoni, Digital Enterprise
Group, Intel Corporation Felix Leung, Digital
Enterprise Group, Intel Corporation Dion Rodgers,
Digital Enterprise Group, Intel Corporation Rich
Uhlig, Corporate Technology Group, Intel
Corporation, Intel Technology Journal, August
2006.
[13.] Virtualization: A Manager’s Guide, Dan
Kusnetzky, ISBN:978-1-449-30645-8, O’REILLY.
[14.] Jack J. Dongarra, Piotr Luszczek, A. P.
(2012), `The LINPACK Benchmark: Past, Present,
and Future',
http://cluster.earlham.edu/project/curriculum-
modules/JOCSE_PetaKit/Resources/LINPACK.pdf
[Online] [Accessed: 2015-11-15].
[15.] [ONLINE]
http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/hypervisor-
security-tips,2-794.html.

Processor Virtualization Comparison VMWare ESXi vs Microsoft Hyper-V

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Processor Virtualization Comparison VMWare ESXi vs Microsoft Hyper-V

Recently uploaded

Processor Virtualization Comparison VMWare ESXi vs Microsoft Hyper-V