VMware ESX Server 3i
I was reading this article about the up-and-coming ESX Server 3i from VMware.
It calls out a bunch on "new features" that we have either been doing for ages, or have announced that we will have in Windows Server Virtualisation (WSV), when we ship Windows Server 2008 - I'm confused (seems like someone is trying to introduce a load of FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
They call out 64GB virtual machines and 128GB physical machines. We'll do 64GB virtual machines with WSV and 64-bit Windows will work with systems with up to 1 Terabyte of physical memory. The reason for this, if you're interested is that our hypervisor is 64-bit and ESX is still 32-bit.
They call out support for virtualisation-aware (para-virtualised) Linux operating systems. We are working with both Novell and XenSource, so we'll do that too (we already support both RedHat and SUSE Linux on Virtual Server).
There's more, but the 'funniest' is the reference to expanded hardware support (storage and networking). Both Virtual Server and WSV use native Windows device drivers - have a look at https://www.windowsservercatalog.com, you'll see that we already support over 6,500 storage items. Both our server virtualisation offerings (Virtual Server and WSV) are completely hardware independent - as long as there is a Windows device driver, you're OK. VMware has a very small, limited sub-set of hardware that they can run on.
Just thought I'd call it out - there's a lot of FUD out there - don't believe any of it.
Dave.
Comments
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
So, in my defense: Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 (shipping product), can do: 512 VMs - we've tested on a 256GB machine. Fail over a running VM in 2 seconds (for free). Run on 64-bit systems. Can run on (pretty much) any hardware. Take snapshots of running machines (for backup). Support SUSE & RedHat Linux. And with System Center Virtual Machine Manager (shipping product), do point and click Physical to Virtual conversions. And manage the whole lot.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
a lot of FUD??? like the explanation of Microsoft of doing something like vmotion with Virtual Server?? come on, Microsoft is king of FUD!!Anonymous
October 12, 2007
This post is FUD. How can I do vmotion, HA, DRS, vmotion with storage on WSV? When will you do all this stuff? When will you release your feature lacking WSV?Anonymous
October 12, 2007
I totally agree with you on this Dave, there's a lot of FUD out here. Features like small footprint, maximized for virtualization, possible to embed into hardware, etc should be ignored in this whole FUD discussion. Hmm, perhaps I should take my anti-cynisism pills again.. ESX 3i can't be compared to the Windows Server Virtualization at this time. As soon as WSV can be used embedded then it would be the right comparison. Thinks like VMotion, HA, DRS makes that VMware is way ahead of Microsoft. I do agree that some exciting this are going to happen with WSV, but it isn't there yet. It will be a nice alternative for (some) companies.Anonymous
October 12, 2007
Remember: "Shipping is a feature too..." :D Viridian is a year away, and you diss 3i features what are weeks away. BTW: What features have you "been doing for ages"? Where's the FUD coming from? Really?Anonymous
October 12, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 14, 2007
Dave, I have written something on 3i a few weeks ago here: http://it20.info/blogs/main/archive/2007/09/19/48.aspx As you could see I for first didn't ring the bell claiming 3i was the end of the world for MS etc etc. But yet your article sounds a bit biased (due to your badge). Not the right way to argue your advantages in my opinion. Massimo.Anonymous
October 14, 2007
By far the worst post I have read from the technet blogs.Anonymous
October 16, 2007
"512 VMs - we've tested on a 256GB machine." And? What kind of load was on those VM's? We have tested VS 2005R2 and it can run VM's just not under any load once you start to stack them up. ESX was easily able to get 3 to 1 vs. VS 2005 under load. "Fail over a running VM in 2 seconds (for free)." Fail over how? I am truly interested in this piece of information. Run on 64-bit systems. Since ESX does not run under an OS like windows this in my book is a shortcoming of VS. You can run 64bit vm's under ESX natively on 64bit hardware and have been able to for a long time. "Can run on (pretty much) any hardware." With pretty much any results, from ok to really poor. "Take snapshots of running machines (for backup)." ESX has done this for some time as well. And with VCB can take live backups of machines that are shutdown consistant not crash consistant. "Support SUSE & RedHat Linux." Ok, any other distro's of linux? And what versions of SUSE and RedHat. I am sure you will find that ESX mops up the floor with VS when it comes to linux support. "And with System Center Virtual Machine Manager (shipping product), do point and click Physical to Virtual conversions." And with VMware Converter (shipping product) do point and click PtoV conversions for quite some time now. "And manage the whole lot." VirtualCenter is the best manager of virtual machines on the market, I eagerly await the day that Microsoft puts the spurs to VMware by realeasing a better virtualization product. That day has not arrived yet.Anonymous
October 28, 2007
I’d just like to point out something I saw in the article originally referenced: Small Footprint.1 ESX Server 3i’s 32MB disk footprint is a fraction of the size of a general purpose operating system, reducing complexity and providing unmatched security and reliability. Last time I checked Server 2008 in core mode, the ultra resource optimized version of windows, took over 4GB of hard drive space. Not that this is really a major point since any ESX host I buy has 2x 300GB drives (mirrored), for now. The point I’m trying to make is that by the time MS releases their next big VS release, VMWare will have moved even further ahead. VMWare ESX has everything now, today, in production, usable. We will not see Windows virtualization 2008 until 180 days after the release of Server 2008 next year. MS needs to step up and get moving. I’m all for running MS’ virtualization software but it isn’t ready for real use, yes we use it in our lab for play testing, but all our development, certification, and production VM’s are on ESX because it outperforms MS VS (and has more features). My response to the other stuff posted above… So, in my defense: Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 (shipping product), can do: 512 VMs - we've tested on a 256GB machine. By my calculations (which might be wrong)) that is 512 MB of RAM per VM. I can’t imagine those VM’s were running any applications like MOM or SharePoint. Fail over a running VM in 2 seconds (for free). I suspect this based is on the above VM’s using 512MB of RAM. Last time I talked to MS (5 weeks ago) it took as long as 4 minutes to fail over a VM from one host to another, depending on the amount of RAM allocated. 2-4 seconds was the time quoted for a VM with 512MB of RAM so that makes sense. Also the VM would not be accessible during this time, unlike VMotion that keeps the VM online almost the entire time. The most that every happened to me with VMotion is I lost 1 ping during the final phase of the move. Run on 64-bit systems. ESX can run 64bit VM’s if the hardware is 64bit. Can run on (pretty much) any hardware. This is true and sometimes I wish ESX supported more hardware. However, the fact that they supported a very specific list of well tested systems ensures stability and reliability. Take snapshots of running machines (for backup). ESX can do this as well. Also if I recall correctly VS 2005 does not have a snapshot manager like ESX (been a while though, they may have added it in R2). Support SUSE & RedHat Linux. Don’t use Linux currently so I don’t care enough to say anything. And with System Center Virtual Machine Manager (shipping product), do point and click Physical to Virtual conversions. In this way they are equal (although VMware had the feature first). And manage the whole lot. To some extent, yes, but VirtualCenter is still ahead of Microsoft.Anonymous
November 27, 2007
InIn all of these postings no one is talking money... ESX Starter is ridiculous in its no SAN limitation, and it’s still expensive... SAN vendors have made iSCSI storage affordable to the SMB VMWare better make ESX more SMB price friendly, or the SMB will go to Microsoft. The SMB does not care about VMotion or any other features, they just want to run as many VMs on a single server as possible.Anonymous
November 29, 2007
the biggest downfall of Virtual server is it is a microsoft product.....enough saidAnonymous
November 29, 2007
incredible display of Micro$haft arrogance who wants the overhead of a windows OS even before you start virtualisingAnonymous
February 04, 2008
Gotta love that Microsoft arrogance! A close friend left the virtualization group a about 2 months back. To summarize his option of the product -- "years behind VMware and Xen" -- with significant engineer attrition due to poor/incompetent management. I believe you get what you pay for. Hence the rock bottom price attached to Hyper-V embedded.Anonymous
February 17, 2008
I never thought I'd hear any representatives from Microsoft this desperate for attention. Are you in the team of developers for a product that is yet to prove anything and I mean anything at all better than products today on market from VMWare and others? I do not even feel like commenting, but baseline is: This post is just plain rude and stupid. It lacks any potential bounds to reality at all. If I was employeer (in this case MS) I would close this blog instantly since it doesn't look good in the eyes of future customers.Anonymous
March 05, 2008
Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it. I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don’t know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.Anonymous
April 09, 2008
Let's wait for 12 months and see how good doze product is.Anonymous
April 09, 2008
lol! the only good post above here (^--------^)is spam for Male Enhancement!Anonymous
April 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 09, 2008
Read this blog by VMware : "Memory Overcommitment in the Real World" http://blogs.vmware.com/virtualreality/2008/03/memory-overcomm.html VMware has the best ROI. Eat that Microsoft.Anonymous
April 10, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 10, 2008
Calling FUD on the other side is the new way of disguising your own FUD, it seems. I fail to see how anyone who knows how to read and has access to the feature lists of both sides can be fooled by the "facts" presented here. Taking your potential customers for fools hasn't exactly benefited any big companies in recent years. Grow up.Anonymous
April 10, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 10, 2008
Pure hilarity. If only everyone at MS was so clueless, maybe I'd still have my Netscape browser.... Unfortunately, this clown is in the minority at MS, and there are a lot of folks there that have a much better grasp on the technology (and reality) than Mr. Northey.Anonymous
April 11, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
Who is this guy..A homeless ? Hmm... Maybe homeless people know even more about virtualization than this guy. Thanks for making a laugh of yourself Microsoft, this is truly the worst blog I have ever seen..Anonymous
August 30, 2008
Where is Microsoft's product, I'm not running it cost to much, ESX 3i server runs, with out a huge windows server footprint, yes ms is nice with support with driver, but at the same time not. Microsoft get your act together, get with open source so people who do this for a living and in the real wrold, can make ,"MAKE" your product work for them, if not end up like the rest that used to be your compatitionAnonymous
December 16, 2008
Did you hear about VMware FT? I just read a bit about it on http://www.virtualizationteam.com/virtualization-vmware/vmware-esx-40-ft-fault-tolerant-sneak-peek.html Would u think that would replace VMware HA? I had seen a video even of FT on that link. Is it available yet?Anonymous
December 16, 2008
Did you hear about VMware FT? I just read a bit about it on http://www.virtualizationteam.com/virtualization-vmware/vmware-esx-40-ft-fault-tolerant-sneak-peek.html Would u think that would replace VMware HA? I had seen a video even of FT on that link. Is it available yet?Anonymous
December 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 02, 2009
Hi, we are considering to buy a VMware Virtual Center. We have two servers running VMware Standard edition. Do you believe it will be worth it? Or do we have to upgrade our VMware licenses to Enterprise before upgrading virtual center to make it worth it. I had just read the following article <a href="http://www.virtualizationteam.com/virtualization-vmware/vmware-virtual-server-virtualization-vmware/virtualcenter-for-vm-ware-server-real-value.html"> VMware virtual center real value </a>