June 04, 2012 | Nathan Lasnoski | Infrastructure, System Center, Virtualization

Hyper-V 2012 vs. VMware

Hey VMware… Novell called. They want their future back! I must admit, having been in IT for a while, I’ve gotten used to Microsoft coming in a little late to the party, then dominating the heck out of a market. We can see that a similar trend is going on in the virtualization market. I can’t tell you the number of current VMware customers who are calling me wanting to talk about Windows Server 2012. Let’s take a look at the market as Microsoft and VMware will compete after the release of Windows Server 2012. I think you’ll find that the business and technology case for Microsoft is pretty compelling in virtualization and management.

I’d start by giving the comparison guide a good read.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/A/0/5A0AAE2E-EB20-4E20-829D-131A768717D2/Competitive%20Advantages%20of%20Windows%20Server%202012%20RC%20Hyper-V%20over%20VMware%20vSphere%205%200%20V1%200.pdf

Here are the key items that I find compelling:

Microsoft really knows automation. This is accomplished through System Center for both IT and analyst requests. It’s clear that we’ve moved into a datacenter phase where we’re very interested in commoditization and automation. Microsoft has delivered plumbing in this area that VMware frankly doesn’t have. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out System Center Service Manager + Orchestrator and see for yourself. Here are some examples to check out:

http://blog.concurrency.com/infrastructure/system-center-orchestrator-roi-and-business-value/

Microsoft got the pricing model right. Microsoft basically assumes that virtualization is a tool incumbent to its datacenter stack and therefore made it free. Hyper-V can be downloaded for free, or installed from the Windows Server installer. This facilitates the automation and management capabilities of System Center. VMware’s cost model is now upside down. They need to keep convincing people that you should pay extra just to virtualize.

Microsoft’s virtualization technology has passed or matched VMware on all performance and scalability features. Check out the statistics and see for yourself.

Host and VM Processors and Memory:

Storage and Capacity:

Microsoft has virtualization mobility for even non-clustered systems with no-shared-storage. Yes, you can live migrate between two systems with nothing but a network cable.

Microsoft has out-of-box multi-site failover capabilities for no additional cost. Hyper-V Replica enabled virtual machines to be replicated from one site to another easily, without expensive SAN replication or extra licensing.

Microsoft has a great deliverable on VDI. Check out all the new features in RDS in Windows Server 2012.

Microsoft has excellent networking features. This includes out-of-box NIC teaming, security features, and partner integration capabilities.

If you want to see VMware’s new sales strategy, check this out:

http://www.vm-limited.com/

Happy virtualizing!

Nathan Lasnoski

Nathan Lasnoski is the Team Lead of Concurrency’s Infrastructure Practice, a Microsoft Virtualization MVP and a recognized leader in Core Infrastructure Design, SharePoint Infrastructure, Virtualization, and Unified Communications technologies.

Find Nathan on: Linkedin Twitter

carsten Rachfahl
Hi Nathan,
Great post and so true. Have same impression here in Germany. many customers wait for Windows Server 2012 and then say VMWAre goodbye.
Cheers Carsten
MVP Virtual Machine
http://YourWebsite Marcus Wessberg
Exactly my opinion to. VMWare are really expensive, and have lots of extra licenses for everything.
Pingback: Hyper-V vs. VMware « ChBooth
http://deranfangvomende.wordpress.com darkfader
it’s cheaper, freshly designed in some parts, every missing feature either ripped off vmware or via datacore and in the end it’s going to be as always:
It somewhat runs, most of the time, is sometimes slower, sometimes faster, but nobody sets it up as even in the MS whitepapers. So most of the times it will be slower.
A few subpar features are turned into standard by whitewashing the original meaning of the features and every few years it blows up.
(1gigE unlimited live migrations. LOL. That is a feature? That you don’t put the right capacity in place and it doesn’t put a limit that ensures best performance based on the limited capacity?) And how come VMWares FT feature is NOT an item in the comparism?
I don’t mind people using a cheaper solution that gets job done, instead of something more powerful that eats up all your money in licenses and maybe even integrates WORSE into your environment.
I do mind people telling lies to themselves, especially when it’s foreseeable they’ll at some point sit there with performance problems inherent in the products they use but dont understand. (ReFS single metadata master, that was getting old 10 years ago?)
http://lindsaybradford.wordpress.com/ Lindsay Bradford
I do virtualisation on a shoestring budget. I’d love to see a similar comparison of Hyper-V 2012 against the latest VirtualBox offering. What killer-app features does Hyper-V have that I can’t get for free that would see me opening my wallet to get?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanlasnoski Nathan Lasnoski
I’d recommend checking out the links I have in the blog. I think you’ll see that Hyper-V and System Center have excellent features and clear management capabilities. Especially check out Service Manager + Orchestrator, for IT process organization and automation activities.

Hyper-V 2012 vs. VMware

I’d start by giving the comparison guide a good read.

Here are the key items that I find compelling:

Nathan Lasnoski

Categories

Get in touch

By Technology

By Solution

By Department

By Industry

You can find us at