Hyper-V

5 Reasons To Choose Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V over VMware vSphere 5.5

Updated: May 1, 2014 – 9:00am MT – Corrected information about ESXi RAM limitations and VSAN release status.

Editor’s Note: Petri IT Knowledgebase Contributing Editor Aidan Finn makes the case for Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V over VMware vSphere 5.5 in this opinion post. In the interest of presenting an additional contrasting viewpoint, we also have an opinion article by David Davis that provides 5 reasons why you should chose VMware over Hyper-V

The world of virtualization has been divided in two when it comes to picking a virtualization platform (come on, who cares about Xen, KVM, or other similar also-rans?). Do you go with the legacy incumbent, ESXi/vSphere, or do you go with the designed for modern computing, Hyper-V/System Center?

In case you haven’t noticed, yes, I am biased towards the Microsoft stack. I am a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional with the Hyper-V expertise. I promote and sell Microsoft licensing. I write about Microsoft products. But (and it’s a big but) I started off happily working with the VMware stack (Workstation and ESX/vCenter), and I’ve angered more than a few Microsoft “blue badges,” aka full-time employees, with my criticisms in the past (for an example, see my post “What Went Wrong At Microsoft). Back in 2008 I started a project and I had my choice of virtualization stacks to build a business on. I evaluated the two big contenders, being quite critical of Hyper-V during the beta period, but eventually I reasoned that Microsoft had the best path going forward. Management agreed with me, and I haven’t look back since. So in this op-ed I want to give you my top 5 reasons to consider Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V.

Sponsored Content

Maximize Value from Microsoft Defender

In this ebook, you’ll learn why Red Canary’s platform and expertise bring you the highest possible value from your Microsoft Defender for Endpoint investment, deployment, or migration.

Hyper-V vs. VMware vSphere: Making the Right Comparison

Note that when comparing the two companies, it’s important to compare apples with apples. That means you either compare the fully featured Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 with the cripple-ware ESXi Free (Hyper-V wins in every possible way). Or you compare Windows Server and System Center with vSphere Enterprise Plus with vOperations Management Suite Enterprise Plus (and Microsoft has so much more to offer here, too).

Do not fall into the trap of comparing different packages, such as comparing WS2012 R2 Datacenter Hyper-V with vSphere Enterprise Plus. Both companies package their products differently, so features reside in different places. For example, VMware’s DRS (virtual machine load balancing) resides in vCenter, whereas Microsoft’s Dynamic Optimization resides in System Center Virtual Machine Manager. To tilt the cart the other way, Microsoft includes all of their features – including Cluster Aware Updating (automatic patching) – in even the free edition of Hyper-V, whereas VMware has a plethora of decreasingly crippled packages of vSphere as you move up the pricing ladder.

Beware of the FUD

I know that the comments on this article may be… let’s say, colorful and intense. I also know that there will be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt, or “FUD.” Some of it will be innocent. Much of it will be out of ignorance and anger. There are those who are invested in the VMware business who don’t want to realize that their competitor is growing market share at four times the rate of their favored product. Maybe those people fear their jobs are at risk? Maybe they don’t want to re-skill? Maybe they work for a VMware reseller and are addicted to the rebate that they get for even trying to sell VMware software?

Personally speaking, I don’t care what virtualization stack you choose to deploy. You might argue that I’m in the business of selling Microsoft server licenses. This is true – but in the end, if you license your Windows virtual machines correctly, you’re buying the same Windows Server licenses that you would use if you were buying vSphere or using Hyper-V.

And with that out of the way, let’s get down to the business of money.

1. Hyper-V Is Free

You can’t beat a free lunch, never mind when it comes with a free dinner, supper, and breakfast. Imagine that you are going to deploy a 5-node virtualization cluster. Each node will have 2 x 6-core processors. There will be at least 20 virtual machines running on each node at any one time. Ninety percent of those virtual machines will run Windows Server. The rest will run the CentOS Linux distribution. You have to price up the solution to run either Hyper-V or vSphere, with live migration which is also known as vMotion.

The hardware will probably be the same, so let’s rule that out and stick with the software. The correct way to license each host to run many Windows Server virtual machines is actually to license each host with Windows Server Datacenter edition. Each Datacenter license cost $6,155 under Open NL licensing. That’s the most expensive kind of volume license you can get, and it’s also the one you see listed publicly. Datacenter edition gives you the following:

  • The rights to license a server with up to two processors to run Windows Server.
  • Licensing for an unlimited (yes, no limits) number of Windows Server virtual machines on that licensed host. Note, if those virtual machines move to another host then that host needs licensing too, even if the move lasts just one second.
  • Oh, and you have the right to enable the fully featured Hyper-V on the host.

Let’s say a host has 20 virtual machines. That will cost $6,155. If that host runs vESXi free, the Windows Server licensing cost for the 20 virtual machines will be $6,155. If the host runs vSphere Enterprise Plus, the Windows Server licensing cost will be $6,155. If the host runs Hyper-V, the Windows Server licensing cost will be $6,155. We have five hosts, so the total Windows Server cost will be $30,775. It is basically up to you if you want to install Windows Server Datacenter on the host and enable Hyper-V. You can just record that you’ve assigned the license to a host, and install vSphere… at an additional cost.

For those who balk at the cost of the Datacenter license, to license each virtual machine with the Standard edition (which could cause legal issues with vMotion or live migration) would cost $882 per virtual machine, or $88,200 for at least 100 virtual machines.

What is the cost of vSphere? We’ll need to go with the cripple-ware Standard edition to get the cheapest license with vMotion. That will cost $1,940.25 and it is per processor. We have five hosts with two processors each, so that is 10 processors, costing $19,402.50 for vSphere. Add in the Windows Server licensing costs and the total for a vSphere implementation would be $50,177.50.

A Hyper-V implementation would have been just the cost of the Data Center licensing. That’s $30,775, a whopping 38 percent cheaper than the VMware-based alternative. And you’d get all of the features of Hyper-V without any constraints, unlike those imposed by VMware on each edition.

This is where someone cries about Linux. Yes, Hyper-V supports Linux. The Linux Integration Services (like VMware tools) are built into most of the Linux distributions that are using in hosting or private enterprise, making them Hyper-V ready and supported out of the box. You do not have to buy Windows Server to run Hyper-V if all of your virtual machines will be Linux based. You can download the fully-featured and free Hyper-V Server 2012 R2. I can’t say that ESXi Free is fully featured; it’s probably best to call it barely-featured, considering the 32 GB RAM per host limitation that is applied by this cripple-ware doesn’t offer vMotion, HA, and other such features considered essential in enterprise virtualization.

Hyper-V = free. VMware = pay lots more.

2. Scalability

I laugh when I hear “vFanboys” cry that Hyper-V isn’t scalable for enterprise workloads. This is the perfect example of ignorance or blind loyalty.

You might remember an American company that used to feature the owner saying “I like it so much that I bought the company.” Microsoft uses Hyper-V. Sure, Microsoft has some 95,000 employees, so you can imagine that they run a lot of hosts internally. But that is nothing when you consider that Microsoft Azure is based on Hyper-V. The Xbox game, Titanfall, ran on 100,000 Azure virtual machines, or, 100,000 Hyper-V virtual machines in Microsoft Azure. When someone deploys a cloud service in Azure, it’s running on Hyper-V.

Let’s look at scalability numbers. The following table, from a Microsoft whitepaper called “Competitive Advantages of Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V over VMware vSphere 5.5,” shows how a WS2012 R2 host compares with vSphere 5.5. Note that Microsoft didn’t bother increasing these “Top Gear” numbers since WS2012 because they had reached theoretical limits that customers were no longer interested in. Microsoft jumped way beyond VMware with the release of WS2012, and maintain much of that lead with WS2012 R2 despite VMware playing catch-up for their last two releases.

Host, virtual machine, and cluster scalability comparisons
Comparing WS 2012 R2 Hyper-V and VMware vSphere virtualiztion scalability

Nice numbers for the hosts, but I’m more interested in getting big workloads operating as virtual machines. How does Hyper-V compare there? VMware matched Hyper-V with the ability to have 64 virtual processors and 1 TB RAM in a single virtual machine, assuming that you pay up for the Enterprise Plus edition at $6,815.25 per proc, or an additional $68,152.50 beyond the cost of the same Hyper-V installation.

3. Storage and Networking

Storage is a bedrock of virtualization. Bad storage leads to a bad virtualization implementation. Microsoft made huge investments in block-based (legacy) storage and software-defined storage in the years leading up to and following the release of WS2012.

Historically a cluster from either platform has required a SAN. Microsoft added alternatives in WS202 and developed them in WS2012 R2. SMB 3.0 is an alternative storage networking protocol that EMC (the owner of VMware) has declared publicly to be “the future of storage.” When combined with Storage Spaces we can build scalable transparent storage in the form of a Scale-Out File Server. So not only can we reduce the cost of licensing with Hyper-V, but we can also reduce the cost of the physical storage with a flexible software-defined storage system. Meanwhile, VMware has released the interesting, but not production supported,  vSAN.

In terms of storage performance, the Microsoft VHDX supports native 4K disks. The VMware VMDK does not, and therefore relies on a very inefficient RMW process.

The storage of Hyper-V versus vSphere

In other storage areas, Hyper-V has ODX where vSphere Enterprise Plus has VAAI. VHDX grows up to 64 TB, where VMDK was recently expanded up to 62 TB. Both platforms have hot storage resizing, but vSphere is limited to expansion only.

A great service is pretty pointless if you cannot get to it. One of the big headline features of Hyper-V is Network Virtualization, also known as Software-Defined Networking (SDN). I’ll give this to VMware: They know how to get the media to think that they’re the first to do something. Lots of reporters believe that VMware NSX is the first network virtualization solution on the market. Microsoft was there a long time before VMware announced NSX. SDN was a reality in Microsoft Azure and was launched in WS2012 with System Center 2012 SP1 management. WS2012 R2 added virtual NVGRE gateway functionality to make NVGRE-based SDN a reality for businesses. This isn’t just some marketing feature – SDN makes it possible for hosting companies to enable self-service network provisioning. It allows huge scalability of up to 16 million virtual subnets versus 4096 VLANs. And SDN increases flexibility, such as overlapping IP subnets or provider IP-agnostic cloud services.

Pure-software networking is not enough. Hardware in a host can offer functionality increases in performance and service scalability. Dynamic Virtual Machine Queue (DVMQ) provides more efficient and scalable processing of packets into the virtual switch from the physical network. Both platforms offer this hardware enhancement. For those for whom security is important, Hyper-V can offload the encryption and decryption of IPsec to a NIC; VMware cannot do this. Single-Root IO Virtualization (SR-IOV) enables selected virtual machines to connect directly to a host’s physical for reduced latency and improved performance. Both platforms offer SR-IOV functionality, but only Hyper-V supports live migration of SR-IOV enabled virtual machines. Note that only Hyper-V offers a “no features that prevent live migration” policy. Microsoft also built on DVMQ to enable Virtual Receive-Side Scaling (vRSS). This feature enables huge throughput into network-intensive virtual machines. VMware also offers this feature but only with VMXNet3.

The networking features of Hyper-V versus vSphere
Comparing networking features

4. It’s All About the Service, Dummy!

We IT pros focus on machines, switches, routers, pretty flashing lights, and all that jazz. The business does not give a monkey’s about any of that. Your MD cares that the website is selling product to the customer. Sales cares that the CRM and order services are online. Accounts cares that the credit control service is running. Purchasing wants email and web services running. Our job in IT is to make services operational, available, and responsive. No one cares about virtual machines, but they do value services.

Microsoft has been building service-centric infrastructure for over a decade. System Center is all about deploying services (Virtual Machine Manager or SCVMM), monitoring services (Operations Manager or SCOM), automating services (Orchestrator or SCORCH), enabling self-service (Service Manager or SCSM), or the mother of all service systems, enabling the cloud (Windows Azure Pack or WAP).

VMware has a history of developing a great virtual machine virtualization platform. That’s their expertise. They’ve developed and acquired a collection of point solutions over the years to build their own suite of products. Quite honestly, this collection befuddles me. I can never remember what product does what and how; there are just so many vProducts. The cost isn’t pretty either. You can buy VMware’s Operations Management Suite Enterprise Plus (for all features) on a per host processor basis for $4,245.00. That will total $42,450 to manage five dual processor hosts.

System Center is an all-inclusive suite that is licensed in the same fashion as Windows Server. Five copies of the Server Management License Datacenter edition for five dual processor hosts and unlimited virtual machines on those hosts will cost 5 x $3,607, or $18,035. So you get all eight components of System Center plus free add-ons like WAP (to build a cloud), Global Service Manager (global monitoring of web sites), and System Center Advisor (integrated cloud-based best practice analyser). And you get all of those tightly integrated suite components for less than half of the cost of the VMware management suite.

Note: When it comes to pricing, both companies offer different bundling options and discounts. I’m comparing list prices. I am also not comparing vCenter to System Center because vCenter has no way to compare with the Microsoft stack. I am sticking to comparing apples with apples.

5. Built from the Cloud Up

I hate to steal a line from Microsoft marketing, but this tagline for Windows Server 2012 and System Center 2012 SP1 perfectly describes what Microsoft has been doing. Microsoft built a cloud OS, a single consistent platform based on Hyper-V that runs in:

  • Private cloud: managed by System Center
  • Public cloud: hosting companies that present their cloud to the customers via Service Provider Foundation (SPF, a REST API) and a WAP portal
  • Microsoft Azure: a hugely scalable cloud based on Hyper-V

Services can be deployed, managed, and automated using one System Center installation across the entire hybrid cloud. No virtualization or cloud company other than Microsoft can say that they have a consistent offering for private and public cloud, as well as hybrid cloud through the entire stack from fabric through to self-service.

Cloud OS
The cloud OS, spanning private, public, and hybrid clouds.[source: Microsoft]
Right now the cloud OS gives you the flexibility to choose the right location to run the tiers of your services, as well as a path forward that you know is built for the future – instead how things were done in the past.

Related Topics:

BECOME A PETRI MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Sign up for a Petri Account

Register
Comments (27)

27 responses to “5 Reasons To Choose Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V over VMware vSphere 5.5”

  1. A very compelling argument, and if all true is hard to disagree with. But us users are used to the way Microsoft works. If Hyper-V is so good, why do you have to keep banging on about it. Why has independent gurus like Gartners Chris Wolf and ex Cisco’s Bred Hedlund chosen VMware as there new employer – surely they must know something you simply do not?. And the big bad news for Microsoft is that the trend is not to have total vendor lock-in and feed the greed. I personally would pay more to keep VMware as my Hypervisor, iPad as my tablet, iPhone as my mobile and the rest of the Microsoft excellent software products as well as Linux distro offerings. And this is what I hear from all my customers. NO SINGLE VENDOR LOCK IN…………period. Multiple vendors in competition/co-opetition keeps you all on your toes to keep producing excellent technology products. There is room for both VMware and Hyper-V.

    • Hi vmcreator you boast about “NO VENDOR LOCK IN” but based on what information? As far as I’m updated both or most of the hyper-visors support multi OS support. As for Microsoft they are the first to go ahead with multi hyper-visor support in the first place. What you forget is how the virtualization market growth happened. VMware started with success when no one focus on this market. So sales are obvious. Now the paradigm has changed. Most of the vendors offer their hyper-visor with much more maturity where VMWare has to struggle to retain that market with quality and same time survive with sales numbers. If you look carefully both hyper-visors have arrived to mature level.

      “If Hyper-V is so good, why do you have to keep banging on about it” – I don’t know your thoughts about this but we’re coming from technical background and we like to speak about the technology we use and interact everyday. Please ask with VMware expert and they will have the same answer :)

      “Why has independent gurus like Gartners Chris Wolf and ex Cisco’s Bred Hedlund chosen VMware as there new employer – surely they must know something you simply do not?” We would like to know that too since I guess you also don’t know about it. So my “ASSUMPTION” is it’s all about survival in the market with strategic planning :)

      • Good points Susantha, but I feel Mr Finn is indicating that Microsoft would like to kill VMware and promote Microsoft only shops albeit with multiple guest OS. I sorry something that most will certainly not accept.

        VMware is the major disrupt or in the IT arena, and in a few years when we see the Appvisor between above the VMware Hypervisor / kernel then apps will simply plug into this and there will be no need for operating systems. If Microsoft succeeds by marketing hype and gains major share over VMware in this Hypervisor space, they will simply be shooting themselves in the foot, as VMware will be weakened and a prime target for acquisition, and guess who will be the new owner YES = Google. Makes sense as they will provide the billions to continue with the Appvisor and disrupt the last twenty years of traditional IT as it has stayed to date.

        Ho hum :-)

  2. I like petri but I stopped reading after only point #1 where they stated ESXi free as cripple ware with a limit of 32GB of RAM. It’s limit is 4TB which is a far cry from 32GB so not sure where your getting your numbers and I’m worried what else is incorrect here.

    • Effectively, with ESXi 5.5 free hypervisor, the physical RAM limitations have been removed. My point of view, it is just a little mistake in this article.
      All others points are fine (for me)! note that limitation of 8 vCPUs is always here with free ESXi Hypervisor.
      Maybe the more important point is that on the free Hyper-V Hypervisor all “equivalent VMware features” are in-the-box at no additionnal costs.
      But more important, the question is “Are you ready to open your mind to other “good solutions” ? Today, Hyper-V box running on Windows Sever 2012 R2 are mature and really ready for all production environment – as ESX is, of course.
      PS: Remember Netware in the past who was the Directory Services leader, Netscape with Browsers, and others … It is not editors who impose their products and technologies but customers that choose.
      The fact is, Hyper-V and System Center are now very competitive and market share is changing day after day! A lot of Microsoft customers starts to think that Hyper-V could be a good alternative. Today, there is a place for both VMware and Hyper-V, but tomorrow …

    • Thanks for the note, Vladan. We’ve updated the article to correct two factual errors: One related to ESXi free memory limitations, and another about the release status of vSAN. In the interest of fairness, we’re also posting a companion article soon that will make the case for VMware over Hyper-V.

    • It is in your meaning responsible comment?

      I have a bigger expectation on You. You are a”guru” on Vmware with very god WEB site,
      with plenty very good information about VMware. So I expect more serious
      comments when you criticize other “gurus” – because Aidan Finn is a”guru” on Hyper-V with with
      very god WEB site, with plenty very good information about Microsoft Hyper-V.

      Shames on you Vladen

      • The cricissism was towards errors in the article (repaired thanks to my constructive input), not towards Aidan and his expertise of Hyper-V environment. That’s a big difference Zdislaw, don’t you think? -:).

  3. >Aidan Finn
    Oh boy, I knew that we were in for some dumb FUD from the very first sentence onwards, so I’m not surprised. Pretty ironic a warning about FUD emits from his keyboard.
    It’s sad that a so called “IT Pro” like him has to make a case for Hyper-V, when it in fact really does have quite a few advantages over vSphere.

  4. Some people comment about Hyper-V or VMWare from a capacity
    point of view (both of them are pretty impressive), some others from a brand
    point of view (simply Microsoft haters or Microsoft lovers) and I will simply
    comment about my experience.

    I was always told about the stability of the VMWare
    environments, based on a really tiny hypervisor providing a solid base for a
    reliable VM solution.

    But unfortunately I never had the chance to work in
    production with VMWare, I work with Hyper-V since several years ago (I would
    say around 5 years) and my experience was always the same “if stability is the
    most important factor well over budget” then you better keep your physical
    servers and leave virtualization for a test environment.

    We had a cluster of Windows 2008, then 2008 R2, 2012 and
    currently 2012 R2. We are running on top of the line servers (no brands, but…)
    1TB RAM, 40GB LAN connections, 8GB FC, 6x 8 cores processors per host. With a
    total of 4 host on the cluster.

    The cluster have 160 VMs all of whom are running some flavor
    of Windows OS on it.

    We are a premier Microsoft customers with almost unlimited
    access to support from them, and the true is:

    Every time we migrated to a newer version we enjoyed a beautiful
    period of about 4 or 6 months of stability, on which we fall in love again with
    the product. We kind of start believing that this time Microsoft did it and
    this is a real solution for virtualization. Unfortunately that period always (it
    never failed) end.

    I’m convinced it is because of the Windows Server Data Center
    Edition being a monster, having that huge OS as a hypervisor means there is a terrible
    amount of updates of all kind needed to be apply and sooner or later the system
    become unstable. I can be wrong, but the fact is, today we are restarting our
    host servers every 2 weeks to avoid the system instability, on top of that we already
    moved back to physical servers various critical services because of the Hyper-V
    issues. Somebody would say, well, just “Live Migrate” the machines, reboot the
    host and that’s it, no big deal. Well, first when we face the instability
    issues Live Migration is the first thing that stopped working, so the VMs needs
    to be a least quick migrated, which means there is a downtime.

    So as per my experience, if budget is not your concern, try
    VMWare to see if it is better (call me so I can play with it as well ;-) ) or
    keep your physical servers.

  5. From a smaller business perspective, I took a shot at Hyper-V free version about a year ago & left it alone since then. It was difficult & limiting to deploy & change as clients needs changed. (Adding a new disk/datastore was a major sticking point at the time).
    Again, from another SMB support guy, apparently the best version of Hyper-v for new players & single-dual server environments, is to use Server 2012 & then turn on the Hyper-V role, allowing easier management within the server’s own GUI.
    “Free”, therefore becomes subjective, as the server software is required, or another server 2012, or a copy of Windows 8, to manage the Hypervisor. A community tool named “corefig” is also apparently popular. I assume due to the lack of visibility & ease of management of Hyper-V.
    VSphere free version in my experience has been a very easy product to deploy & use, simply with a copy of VMware workstation on any remote PC or laptop for some tasks. As a service provider, I can VPN to my clients office & then connect my VMware workstation easily to their VSphere Hypervisor, or use an on-site VShere client.
    Whilst only in the small business market, as opposed to most of the commenters being in the datacentre, corporate environment, I would still place ease of management & visibility as high priorities, if for no other reason than to minimize mistakes.
    cheers
    Ian

  6. It’s a bit sad that the only thing the author of the article did was just take the marketing info, mainly from Microsoft.

    What would be truly interesting, is to give some inexperienced people an environment and let them set up vSphere or Hyper-V from scratch. Then you have an idea which product is easier to work with.

    Then you would take a reasonable environment (not an insane setup which is irrelevant for most of us) and compare what you come across during a certain period of time.

    This article is simply useless and only serves to take down my opinion of this website. Just the fact that VMware is seen as legacy is incredibly stupid; Microsoft is following the leader here (me too product), they’re not truly innovating at all.

  7. I think Microsoft has had some innovation with cloning systems but I have never seen articles that compare the ability to easily manage hundreds of VMs between the two products. From what I have briefly seen, the vSphere thick client is better (the web client needs work) than anything I have seen in HyperV demo sessions, which strictly focus on creating a VM, modifying a VM, etc.

    Also, aren’t you limited to what you can do with regards to migrating VMs to other locations with HyperV unless you have Software Assurance?

    http://up2v.nl/2014/05/05/comparing-hyper-v-to-vsphere-licensing-hosts-for-disaster-recovery/

    • The licensing implications of migrating Windows Server VMs to any other location has nothing to do with virtualization technology or licensing. What applies to a Hyper-V VM applies to a XenServer VM or a vSphere VM. Remember: there is no “Hyper-V” licensing; there is only licensing of Windows Server VMs no matter what the virtualization software is.

  8. Personally, I find hyper-v has two big flaws. One is that you have to deal with Windows Clustering. The other is that System Center products tend to disintegrate over time. Its been a few years since I’ve used SCVMM but it seemed to crap its pants pretty frequently. I’ve been using Xen at my current employer, and though I found it by far the most intuitive of the 3 for basic stuff, it has some issues and not enough people use it to make it easy to support. So now I’m giving vmware a try, it can’t be the most widely used for no reason…

    • “So now I’m giving vmware a try, it can’t be the most widely used for no reason..” — the popularity of a product says nothing about its quality

  9. It’s seem when comes
    to the discussion on what virtual platform to implement in your
    clients or companies infrastructure there (pros and cons) to each
    product.

    However, that being
    said on the discussion of vitalization VWARE is King. Why do you
    think there are so many VMWARE experts.

    When you install a
    Microsoft Hyper-V virtual environment you inherent all the baggage
    with the Microsoft Windows Server Operating System. We all know
    about patch Tuesday’s!

    I’ve have
    extensively used both vitalization products Microsoft Hyper-V and
    VMWARE Hypervisor, and by far Hypervisor the winner in my book.

    However, I know that
    people are band loyal.

  10. I understand author point of view and disagree with many of them. I’m a VMware guy and I will go with it even Hyper-V is “free”. I have my own requirements and expectations.
    There is a little moment… maybe many of you will disagree with that… I’m just making a parallel with it: Novel Netware boom!, Oracle boom!… where a these guys? They had nice products, easy to manage and closer to IT gurus. But nowadays business try to save money and they accept things they understand and if it’s cheap. In my country many started with Oracle and now? You can hardly see Oracle used by companies. Many of them switched back to SQL Server, just because it needs less resources, cheaper and accessible for many IT pro or beginners. Also a god marketing job from Microsoft and a guy will go as Microsoft SQL DBA than Oracle DBA, just because SQL is 90% of the market. Yes… Oracle is better, but for big environments where we have less chances to get a job.
    The same thing with VMware and Microsoft… Many bosses counts on their IT specialists than the product they really need. But your boss will give you a choice: go with Hyper-V I’ve ordered or leave the company and look for another one that has vSphere. It’s very simple.
    The author is seller and by his post he tries to sell the product. We as IT pro know very well that he is missing many very important points. But hey… If I’m noob, I’m beginner or I’m Microsoft addicted guy I will go with Hyper-V…
    Or one of IT specialists of our company was trying to convince me that we spend a lot on VMware products while we could go with other solutions, like KVM… just because he used KVM at previous job managing dozens hosts and hundred VMs and they had no issue. Fine… go you if you wish, but I went with VMware based on business requirements and based on their requirements I came to a product that fits my needs. Yes… it maybe looks expensive, but business is ready to pay for it as it solves lot of requirements.
    What I want to say at the end. No so many of companies can afford VMware products or in some cases they don’t understand very well their needs. And here… Microsoft wins with marketing game.
    Just asking myself if VMware will not be Oracle…

Leave a Reply

Aidan Finn, Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP), has been working in IT since 1996. He has worked as a consultant and administrator for the likes of Innofactor Norway, Amdahl DMR, Fujitsu, Barclays and Hypo Real Estate Bank International where he dealt with large and complex IT infrastructures and MicroWarehouse Ltd. where he worked with Microsoft partners in the small/medium business space.
External Sharing and Guest User Access in Microsoft 365 and Teams

This eBook will dive into policy considerations you need to make when creating and managing guest user access to your Teams network, as well as the different layers of guest access and the common challenges that accompany a more complicated Microsoft 365 infrastructure.

You will learn:

  • Who should be allowed to be invited as a guest?
  • What type of guests should be able to access files in SharePoint and OneDrive?
  • How should guests be offboarded?
  • How should you determine who has access to sensitive information in your environment?

Sponsored by: