Microsoft baits new vSphere-to-Hyper-V switch offer Microsoft is having another go at displacing vSphere. Redmond's new offer means that if you make the move and prove it to Microsoft's satisfaction, you will “Receive free Windows Server Datacenter licenses with Software Assurance and pay only the cost of Software Assurance”. On one level this is business as usual: vendors are …
" suggest its critics look at the scoreboard, where it beats Hyper-V by about four to one!"
Hyper-V has had over 30% of the hypervisor market for some time now. Vsphere therefore only beats it by about one point five to one!
See for instance http://www.thomasmaurer.ch/2014/07/hyper-v-is-eating-vmwares-lunch/
>Redmond's new offer means that if you make the move and prove it to Microsoft's satisfaction, you will “Receive free Windows Server Datacenter licenses with Software Assurance and pay only the cost of Software Assurance”.
That is still more expensive than GNU/Linux + support, thanks, but no ... I'll keep my Linux boxen ...
"That is still more expensive than GNU/Linux + support,!"
Not versus a commercially supported version like Redhat it isn't...
The Datacentre version also include unlimited Windows Server VM licences.
And don't forget that Hyper-V Server is also a proper standalone Hypervisor (like vSphere) that can run without an underlying OS and not just a bolt-on OS kernel plugin like say KVM.
Last time I checked It still requires a Windows Kernel to run a VM in (and pass IO through) much like the DOM0 in Xen. In hyper-V server its stripped down, but still there (just really limited).
I would argue KVM is actually a more elegant design (What's the point of having a hypervisor if you must hairpin all IO through a management VM?!)
I would assume that, if you get the licenses for free and need to "only" pay for SA, they are perpetual. Theoretically that would mean that, once the SA agreement is up, you can use the licenses for as long as you want (or until support for the version ends).
Knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprised if the offer didn't include some legalese stating that :
a. SA is mandatory
b. Licenses can't be transferred between hosts
c. All of the above
But even with those it might still be cheaper than vmware...
"virtualisation isn't a growth business any more and is gently slowing vSphere development"
One wonders if the real reason has more to do with not much to copy-paste over from kernel.org these days, currently kernel.org is not undergoing any significant architecture changes and they are embarked in a "just refining stuff" phase for the time being.
But that is just me :-P
At my last job they had a working vSphere cluster, with mostly Windows VMs on top. A new IT manager was hired and they decided it would be cheaper to use Hyper-V instead of vSphere, thus consolidating everything under the Microsoft umbrella.
It didn't go well. Our cluster was suddenly susceptible to crashes from applying Windows updates, and it crashed on a bi-weekly basis because the manager didn't read the update notes before releasing them to the cluster. We could have tried to postpone updates, but eventually we needed to update in order to continue using Microsoft's cloud services. It never got better.
You've been warned.
> manager didn't read the update notes before releasing them to the cluster.
If the same dimwit manager was let loose on a vSphere cluster happily doing upgrades without reading release notes then you'd still be borked.
Those Dunning-Krugers types are everywhere, and their only skill is honing their CVs and bullshitting the existing management and HR in the first place to hire them.
"A new IT manager was hired and they decided it would be cheaper to use Hyper-V instead of vSphere"
Yep, no brainer.
"Our cluster was suddenly susceptible to crashes from applying Windows updates, and it crashed on a bi-weekly basis because the manager didn't read the update notes before releasing them to the cluster. "
So the problem was your managers approach to installing and testing updates, not the product. Updates are normally released monthly. (In general Hyper-V Server requires far fewer patches / updates / fixes than vSphere.)
Nope, i've lost all trust in MS after the windows 10 fiasco. That was just really bad business the way they pushed it out.
Why would I give up a solid hypervisor with excellent management and services for their free and crippled version of a hypervisor.... it's barely a virtual platform with clunky tools... i'll stick with what I have thank you very much!
"Why would I give up a solid hypervisor with excellent management and services for their free and crippled version of a hypervisor"
FYI - Hyper-V Server is both fully featured and free - nothing is crippled.
If you want the GUI / management stack then you need to pay for it. But that's still cheaper than vSphere - which you also have to pay (lots more) for...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
