The choice of hypervisor — VMware ESXi, VMware ESX, Citrix XenServer?

0 like 0 dislike
13 views
Statement of the problem

There is a Central office in 80 people, several remote offices (30 people), and some more remote agents (+10).


Agents and remote offices via terminals, offices of the United VPN.


Virtualization worked at the VMware Server, WS, VirtualBox, etc. That is mostly on General-purpose workstations, and in most cases for testing services.


There was a question on putting in order of server hardware and optimizing the whole business.

VMware ESXi, Citrix XenServer.

Of the above tried everything, except the paid ESX.

The control panel is more like it from Citrix XenServer. The capabilities of ESXi wins.


I want a few physical machines to the cluster, the path and user files stored on NAS or external shelf (which is better by the way?). Balansirovka load would be very cool to have, snapshots, and other buns.


Looked back in the direction of Hyper-V Server. There offer even more attractive if you buy WinSrv2008r2 Ent version and to up to 4 virtual Windows in the appendage... But what is painfully scary to me to give virtualization in the hands of MS.


Who than uses? Advise something =)


You can consider paid options VMware Esx, if they are very favorably to the free options.
asked by | 13 views

7 Answers

0 like 0 dislike
Why not consider Xen..?
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
Instead of XenServer, you can look at the Xen Cloud Platform. Recently released the version 1.0 (still beta) with support for vastsky. 0.5 is already more than stable (all bugs belong to the management interfaces, and not to the stability of the hypervisor, i.e., new path glitches are not affected).
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
the main question — what for virtualization to support different operating systems zoo VMware wins at Xena's features are available free — Zen will be more abruptly (especially such a thing in it as the live migration of virtuallock between gipervizor).
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
Microsoft Hyper-V.
\r
Pros:
\r
1. The hypervisor does not cost anything, it can be downloaded from Microsoft (Hyper-V Server);
2. Well suited for OS virtualization from Microsoft;
3. Most Microsoft products support running in a virtual Hyper-V environment;
4. Easy to install and configure;
5. Most system administrators know how to work with it;
6. Can be installed on any server on which you can stand Windows.
\r
Cons:
\r
1. Ill-suited for virtualization the OS is not from Microsoft (ie Windows);
2. Advanced administrative tools (Virtual Machine Manager) paid;
3. For every copy of Windows inside a hypervisor will have to pay (if it is used in Hyper-V Server, if you use the Hyper-V role Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter, then the copy of Windows running in a virtual environment do not have to pay).
\r
VMware ESXi.
\r
Pros:
\r
1. From a technical point of view the most advanced hypervisor;
2. Free (you can download from VMware);
3. Supports many OS itself (Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc.);
4. Easy to install and configure.
\r
Cons:
\r
1. Advanced administrative tools pay;
2. Can only be installed on a limited number of servers;
3. For every copy of Windows inside a hypervisor will have to pay;
4. Not all system administrators are able to work with him.
\r
XenServer.
\r
Pros:
\r
1. Supports many OS inside;
2. Free;
3. Supports a large number of servers.
\r
Cons:
\r
1. Advanced administrative tools pay;
2. For every copy of Windows inside a hypervisor will have to pay;
3. Most system administrators not worked with him.
\r
If You want to run in a virtual environment operating system and applications from Microsoft — choose Hyper-V.
\r
If You want to run in a virtual environment different OS (Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.) and Your server is in the HCL ESXi select ESXi.
\r
If You want to run in a virtual environment and Linux OSS, and You have professionals who could work with him — choose XenServer.
\r
If You have more questions — write to mail, I will answer.
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
"But what is painfully scary to me to give virtualization in the hands of MS."
\r
Don't be afraid. They are in the market for a long time began to come. Quite solid now and very actively developed.
I have a brood-based Hyper-V is already a year and a half. I am very pleased.
\r
It has its disadvantages, has its advantages. To virtualize non-windows guest OS will be present limitations.
\r
ESXi is good. Quite conveniently placed. But not all iron. Optimists there driver from Linux themselves inserted. It is paid and not cheap. Free maximum resources of iron for ESXi and for each new path, well, restrictions on auxiliary functionality. Remote management through Tulsa.
In my hands is unpleasant. (running on several production servers). In particular, it is very unpleasant to restore the collapsed chain drives. Brrrr.
\r
ESX is in a sense the predecessor of ESXi. More heavy, more functional, only paid. It third-party driver just wet. Trust him more (than ESXi), because for him the background more.
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
"For every copy of Windows inside a hypervisor will have to pay"
can be a little more from now?
answered by
0 like 0 dislike
MS have a very complex licensing program, MS in General, for any VM is subject to licensing. The essence of the following.
The first option:
Buy a server and it Hyper-V Windows Server Datacenter a product from MS, then you can put any number of VM with Windows and they will all be licensed and legal.
The second variant:
You buy the server and it put Hyper-V free, and then starts the VM you 1 costs 35 000 rubles per MS Server + on 1 200 roubles for each client communicating with him. The same happens with VMware and Citrix Xen Server.
answered by

Related questions

0 like 0 dislike
3 answers
0 like 0 dislike
1 answer
0 like 0 dislike
3 answers
0 like 0 dislike
3 answers
0 like 0 dislike
2 answers
24,509 questions
45,932 answers
0 comments
352 users