eugene20022002
asked on
Vmware vs Hyper-V Advice needed
Hi
I need to convince my boss why Vmware is better than Microsofts HyperV so that we can impliment a Vmware Vsphere Solution.
I have about 80 servers and non of them have any fault tolerance etc.
In my opinion Vmware is much better. I have set it up in my test environment. Got HA and Vmotion working and its really an awsome product and my favorite on the market.
If I am to get a atleast 2 really strong servers with a entry level SAN , so that I can atleast consolidate around 10-20 servers on it , I will need to do a proper cost analysis and really prove to him why we should go Vmware and not HyperV.
Cost implications is obviously the biggest factor and I should also be able to show and motivate the difference in features , and whether its worth it for the company to invest in a virtual solution.
At this point everyone is against virtualisation but Im not because I have used it before in my previous job aswell.
I need the difference in licensing costs, what Vmware has that Hyper V does not. If windows licences is cheaper if it is virtual.
I would also like some recommendations for a good entry level 2 blade sever with SAN solution. Something that if proven it works effeciently can easily be expanded to accomadate exapansion.
Thank you for all your input and advice
Eugene
I need to convince my boss why Vmware is better than Microsofts HyperV so that we can impliment a Vmware Vsphere Solution.
I have about 80 servers and non of them have any fault tolerance etc.
In my opinion Vmware is much better. I have set it up in my test environment. Got HA and Vmotion working and its really an awsome product and my favorite on the market.
If I am to get a atleast 2 really strong servers with a entry level SAN , so that I can atleast consolidate around 10-20 servers on it , I will need to do a proper cost analysis and really prove to him why we should go Vmware and not HyperV.
Cost implications is obviously the biggest factor and I should also be able to show and motivate the difference in features , and whether its worth it for the company to invest in a virtual solution.
At this point everyone is against virtualisation but Im not because I have used it before in my previous job aswell.
I need the difference in licensing costs, what Vmware has that Hyper V does not. If windows licences is cheaper if it is virtual.
I would also like some recommendations for a good entry level 2 blade sever with SAN solution. Something that if proven it works effeciently can easily be expanded to accomadate exapansion.
Thank you for all your input and advice
Eugene
ASKER
What about entry level physical servers recomendations?
All i need to start off with is 2 servers with a san that is fully vmware compatible so that I can atleast run HA on it.
So that I can get some quotes on it.
All i need to start off with is 2 servers with a san that is fully vmware compatible so that I can atleast run HA on it.
So that I can get some quotes on it.
Dell PowerVault MD3000i would be a good candidate for iSCSI SAN.
I suggest that you make an inventory of all your physical servers and then categorize them accordingly (Domain Controllers, Web Servers, DB Servers,etc) which could give you a picture about the number of physical instances which you can save.
Also keep a note of your OEM Licenses since they cannot be migrated to the Virtual Environment.
You can do a P2V of your physical machines only when they have a Retail or Volume License.
I suggest that you make an inventory of all your physical servers and then categorize them accordingly (Domain Controllers, Web Servers, DB Servers,etc) which could give you a picture about the number of physical instances which you can save.
Also keep a note of your OEM Licenses since they cannot be migrated to the Virtual Environment.
You can do a P2V of your physical machines only when they have a Retail or Volume License.
ASKER
Thanks arunjaju.
Also do you pay cheaper for your windows licenses if its virtualized?
Also do you pay cheaper for your windows licenses if its virtualized?
For hardware-suggestions: look at the HP BladeSystem blades: you can start with a c3000-enclosure. When you're using so-called half-height blades (like the BL460c), you can start with 2 blades and expand up to eight. For storage: there are storage-blades available to put in your c3000, or you can take a look at the HP MSA series (Modular Smart Array).
For arguement-suggestions: I'd suggest you make a list of requirements first, and then tick off what can and can't be done with Hyper-V or VMWare. The result will be your hypervisor of choice. Now you're trying to work the other way around: first choosing a product and then trying to find reasons to use the extra features...
For arguement-suggestions: I'd suggest you make a list of requirements first, and then tick off what can and can't be done with Hyper-V or VMWare. The result will be your hypervisor of choice. Now you're trying to work the other way around: first choosing a product and then trying to find reasons to use the extra features...
This is how Microsoft licensing works
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
@oztrodamus: Thank you so much for your input. That is exactly the type of input Im looking for in order to build my business case.
I think the motivation to go virtual may not be that difficult once I present them with facts and a show them the savings over time , example less racks , less power , less aircons , less physical servers. HA , Vmotion , easy of deploying new servers.
I know initial cost is going to be a bit much but hopefully I can show a saving with added benifits.
Is there an intel and HP alternative for your HW recomendations?
Im going to get quotes for the Dell Solution now but need more than one quote.
Thanks again for all your resonses.
Another question, do you save on Windows licenses if it is a VM compared to a physical server?
I think the motivation to go virtual may not be that difficult once I present them with facts and a show them the savings over time , example less racks , less power , less aircons , less physical servers. HA , Vmotion , easy of deploying new servers.
I know initial cost is going to be a bit much but hopefully I can show a saving with added benifits.
Is there an intel and HP alternative for your HW recomendations?
Im going to get quotes for the Dell Solution now but need more than one quote.
Thanks again for all your resonses.
Another question, do you save on Windows licenses if it is a VM compared to a physical server?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Honestly, I do prefer HP servers over Dell servers, BUT hands down Equallogic is the best ISCSi SAN on the market today. You will not find a that better SAN that offers a cheaper price per performance. The only downside is a couple years ago Dell bought Equallogic and now in order to get the discounts that make it a cost competitive solution you need to buy Dell servers. With that said the Dell R710 is a very good server and supports up to 144GB RAM. The closest HP alternative is the DL380 line as mentioned above.
Regarding Windows licensing "cheaper" is a matter of perspective. It's certainly easier to buy Windows Enterprise licenses, because you get 4 virtual licenses and 1 physical (If you use VMWare the physical license won't count, because it's intended for your Hyper-V installtion). I don't think it's really any cheaper though when you breakdown the actual cost per license. The advantage is when you couple it with Microsoft Assurance you ammoritize the payment out over three years.
ASKER
Hmmm that is what my next question was going to be. Whether you only save if the Virtual solution is MS or if it doesnt matter whether its vmware , citrix , xen or hyper v.
ASKER
The licensing got me a bit confused. Im not sure what I need.
I think I need :
1 x VSphere Vcenter 4 license
2 x Vsphere Advanced Server ESX licenses.
Is this correct?
Also Im really getting confused when it comes to per core or per cpu. Can anyone just clear that for me?
I think I need :
1 x VSphere Vcenter 4 license
2 x Vsphere Advanced Server ESX licenses.
Is this correct?
Also Im really getting confused when it comes to per core or per cpu. Can anyone just clear that for me?
x4 VMWare VSphere Advanced licenses is all you would need. The VCentre Server license would be included along with VMotion, HA, and VCB.
VMWare licenses by the physical CPU package not the number of cores. With a limitation of 6 cores per package.
VMWare licenses by the physical CPU package not the number of cores. With a limitation of 6 cores per package.
vSphere Advanced and Enterprise Plus supports upto 12 Cores per CPU while the rest of them support 6 Cores per CPU.
http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html
http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html
ASKER
Awsome guys, Thanks for your assistance.
I also suggest that you go for Enterprise License rather than Advanced License since DRS would be useful to you when you have Server Proliferation at a later date.
DRS is nice to have, but it's not necessary, and you can always add it later via a license upgrade in a year or two. The main thing is getting off the ground by keeping costs under control.
ASKER
@otrodamus - I agree with you. At the moment its much more important to keep costs at an absolute minimum otherwise I run the risk of it not being approved in the first place. So I just need to get it started so that they can then see the awsome power of Vmware :-)
ASKER
One of the questions Ive been asked most is , What happens if the SAN fails?
Ive explained features such as HA for example that allows a host to fail and the machines just being restarted on the remaining host. However Im not expert yet and nto sure how I can answer that question without showing that the SAN is a single point of failure. So how can I answer that question without my audience turning their back on vmware?
i know usually it will just be a drive that will go faulty and thats obviously easy to fix. and the chances of the whole SAN failing is really really small, but not impossible so I do need to plan for worst case scenario.
Thanks
Ive explained features such as HA for example that allows a host to fail and the machines just being restarted on the remaining host. However Im not expert yet and nto sure how I can answer that question without showing that the SAN is a single point of failure. So how can I answer that question without my audience turning their back on vmware?
i know usually it will just be a drive that will go faulty and thats obviously easy to fix. and the chances of the whole SAN failing is really really small, but not impossible so I do need to plan for worst case scenario.
Thanks
In general a SAN array is pretty redundant by design. Almost every aspect of the array has a redundant part. But you are right it's not impossible for a SAN to fail. It's just not very likely. if you really need to mitigate the possibility of failure you would need to have two SAN's in some type of replication cluster. But that's really taking things to the Nth degree. The problem you're most likely going to run into is hard drive failure and you can mitigate that risk by the RAID type you choose.
ASKER
@ oztrodamus - I agree , I just need to be prepared when faced with these questions so that I have can have a good factual response. I suppose having a good SLA HW maintainance on it would help aswell. Like a 2 hr response 4hr fix etc. So even if it does fail it will be resolved in a relatively quick time.
ASKER
To all you guys. Thank you for your input and advice..
My question have been answered.
Thanks again.
My question have been answered.
Thanks again.
ASKER
Thanks
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/25491401/Microsoft-Hyper-v-or-Vmware-Esxi.html