Over the past couple of weeks, I've had various meetings discussing upcoming features and roadmaps for both the latest versions of VMware 4.x and vCenter, as well as Hyper-V 2008 R2 and SCVMM.
The battle continues between Microsoft's debate on cost savings versus VMware's claim to fame that their product is not only more cost effective (per app), but their expertise in virtualization performance coupled with their advanced capabilities that Hyper-V has yet to match, keeps them on top as an enterprise virtualization solution. The question is... How close is Microsoft to either A. Matching the capability that VMware has (if ever)? and B. Which solution is more important to your organization, cost or performance?
Microsoft in June 2010 conducted a very extensive study (though I have to assume that the metrics are slightly skewed) on the cost benefit analysis of Hyper-V to VMware.
The key points in the cost analysis was that Microsoft has a cheaper solution when you break it down per guest operating system as well as a cheaper solution when looking at annual labor costs within a VI... Though the one thing that it doesn't seem to discuss, is not the performance of the VI test model, nor did it discuss existing capabilities within the products that were tested. Knowing that this was a cost analysis and only a cost analysis I think that Microsoft could in fact be a cheaper (bottom line dollar amount) product... Meaning in test lab environments it's an ideal solution (as you can see below)...
Workload Comparison – Average Cost per Guest VM by Platform
The respondents were asked to identify the workloads their company had virtualized. Across workloads (App, DB, DR, Email, Test & VDI) the Hyper-V costs were less expensive for all workloads except test – in all other workloads the Hyper-V customer saw significant savings.
The bottom line is looking at the above, that most platforms are utilizing VMware versus Hyper-V (with the exception of test/lab environments). If you look at some of the noteworthy platforms (VDI, E-mail, and App), you can see that VMware is even more heavily utilized (though costing more). I believe this to be true because these environments are extensive to configure in a VI (especially a VDI solution). Also, because VMware has more redundancy measures you can configure within those environments, the labor associated with the design and operations may also be increased.
Bottom line, it's the organization that decides the benefit of their VI design and layout (be it cost, features, performance, or a combination of all of the above based on the requirements). However, I think David Davis a contributor to SearchVMware.com nailed it on the head...
Why VMware ESX beats Microsoft Hyper-V, hands-down
In the end, it is my opinion that VMware "wins the war" for several reasons. Perhaps most obvious, is that Microsoft is already incredibly behind VMware in terms of virtualization know-how and may never catch up. In 2007 alone, VMware announced ESXi, Site Recovery and Update Manager in an effort improve ESX Server. As they will continue to improve their product year after year to provide more value, Microsoft is fighting an uphill battle.
In addition, VMware will continue to see a huge surge in revenue thanks to Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI). VDI, in my opinion, will be the next wave of virtualization after server consolidation. Also, VMware will be able to compete in the price war with Microsoft because of ESXi. The company has the option of giving it away for free, but even if they don't they're still offering it at $495 as opposed to Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V at $999.
Finally, and most importantly, ESXi can still win in efficiency. Compare the ESXi hypervisor at 32MB to the size of Hyper-V at about 2GB. Who will win at boot up? Who will win at security? Who will win when it comes to a lack of troubleshooting and solid reliability? My guess is that 32MB worth of code is going to be inherently faster, more secure and more reliable. In terms of reliability and uptime, it has been stated that ESX will run for 1000+ days without a reboot, whereas Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V will need to be rebooted every 30 days due to Windows Updates.
In the end, if you look at just a single license of VMware Infrastructure Suite Enterprise at $6950, and compare that to a single license of Windows Server 2008 Enterprise or Standard, the cost for the VMware solution will undoubtedly cost more. However, it still beats Microsoft's Hyper-V in terms of performance hands-down.
(Davis, D., 2008).
Regardless, of your environment and budget, requirements are going to define whether or not you utilize Hyper-V or VMware. If you have no requirement to deploy a highly available solution and you have a limited budget, then Hyper-V is the answer. If you have a large environment with a complex storage and network implementation and you want to utilize redundant solutions within your host, guest OS's, and network implementation then VMware with vCenter is the answer.
On a personal note, I hope everyone has a Happy Holiday and a Happy New Year... More blogs to come in 2011. Hope you enjoy!
References:
Davis, D. (2008). How VMware ESX performance trumps Hyper-V's price. Retrieved on December 21, 2010 from How VMware ESX performance trumps Hyper-V's price
Microsoft. (2010). Microsoft Hyper-V vs. VMware ESX & vSphere Operations & Management Cost Analysis. Retrieved on December 21, 2010 from Microsoft Hyper-V vs. VMware ESX & vSphere Operations & Management Cost Analysis
