Is Virtual Server 2005 R2 any good?

Yes - is the obvious answer.

I'm in the process of writing an article on Virtualisation and stumbled accross this:

It would rate Virtual Server as equal to ESX with regard Performance.  We only loose out on Management - it must have been done by someone who didn't know about MOM and the Virtual Server management pack.  They obviously hadn't heard of Virtual Machine Manager either..

Dave

Comments

• Anonymous
  January 01, 2003
  I know - I was only 'being cheeky' - trying to put the cat amongst the pigeons.  We can move virtual machines between hosts, by using good old Microsoft Cluster Services.  I just recon that if you look at the management of the whole Microsoft platform, we've a very good story (including coverage of our virtual stuff) & that some of the stuff that gets called out as 'missing' is actually there (somewhere - usually within Windows itself). I'm looking forward to Windows Virtualisation - that will really get the debate moving..

• Anonymous
  January 29, 2007
  Actually if you take a look at the article they talk about System Center Virtual Machine Manager right in the first paragraph of the review of Virtual Server.  But given that SCVMM is a beta, and might not be out for production use for almost a year, they were being pretty generous.  As it stands right now, though I use Virtual Server exclusively, if you've ever seen VMware manage a bunch of servers and move the VM's around you'd also give them at least the points they did in management.  They also didn't knock Virtual Server in terms of it not being able to 'overbook' resources ala RAM, when VMware handles that flexibility (i.e. loading two 2GB ram VM's on a 3GB ram host).