Hopefully a few steps ahead of Microsoft's solution.
I love how VMware comes up with new things on a regular basis. Like at VMWorld 2005 they came with VMPlayer they now came with VMWare server for free (After Microsoft's announcement of their free Virtual Server?).
I just have alot more faith in VMWare's solutions then I have in M$ solutions for virtualisation.
>now came with VMWare server for free (After Microsoft's announcement of their free Virtual Server?)
Actually, it was after MS announced the $99 price for Virtual Server. They announced $0 VS a couple of months after VMware announced the $0 VMware Server.
I have more faith in VMware as well, but never count Microsoft out, especially with their ability to undercut competitors prices, generate huge amounts of marketing material, "independent" studies praising the benefits of MS products, and volumes of FUD. And of course there is always the chance they will make a really great product
>>>And of course there is always the chance they will make a really great product
or an even better chance they will buy another great product.
Ah thnx ... wasn't sure
Microsoft does have some good products and I do have to say that our AD runs very very smooth and so does our Exchange2003 enviroment, but in some way I just don't wanna work with VirtualServer. The VMWAre way just fits me more. At this moment we have two ESX running (more big ones on the way!)... it just never let's me down!
Unless MSFT lets go of Windows for the base OS for Virtual Server (yeah, right), it will never be able to compete with VMWare on uptime.
How many times do you need to reboot your VMs on a yearly basis for Windows Updates/Security Patches/Software Updates/Driver Updates/etc? That's the deathknell for being the base OS for Virtual Machines. Now your not rebooting one server, your rebooting 10 servers all at one time. You just cannot do that in an enterprise environment (and before someone gets cute, yes, I know you can cluster them for failover; but why put a bandaid on it when VMWare ESX is the solution).
MSFT needs to realize that their OS is soon going to be relagated (as DOS was by MSFT) to a "hosted" system. Just like you can open a DOS window in Windows, now your going to open a MSFT window from Linux (ESX). Windows Updates/patches (along with other things) make MSFT a non-option for running large virtual environements.
Now, if MSFT would give us a Linux based kernel/console, we might have a real competator, and I would be much less confident. Anyone want to take a bet on the day that MSFT releases a Linux based virtualization platform? That's the day we need to be concerned about, trust me. But the day MSFT sells Linux is the day that hell freezes over.
How many times do you need to reboot your VMs on a
yearly basis for Windows Updates/Security
Patches/Software Updates/Driver Updates/etc?
My Windows servers usually get rebooted about once every 2 months. Seems pretty robust to me. It appears lots of Linux kernel updates occur more frequently than that, and lots of them seem to break basic functionality of applications like VMware's products. No thanks.
Unless MSFT lets go of Windows for the base OS for
Virtual Server (yeah, right), it will never be able
They're already working on it. Their new hypervisor, code-named Viridian, will run beneath Longhorn Server, and Microsoft has organized their Core Operating System Division to put the Viridian team alongside the kernel team. Packaging-wise, Viridian may still ship as part of a product called Windows, but that's no different than Xen being bundled with a Linux distro.
Merely 8 days after your post, Microsoft publicly demonstrated a version of the Longhorn kernel built specifically to run on top of the hypervisor instead of beneath it. This stuff is still 2 years away from shipping, hence Virtual Server continues to receive incremental improvements like Carmine.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not cheerleading for Microsoft here. Two years is going to be a long wait, and unless VMware simply goes to sleep during that time, I think VMware will still have the superior technology and implementations in 2008. I'm just pointing out that you can never blow off Microsoft with "yeah, right."
Microsoft's hypervisor technology is the one big thing VMware should watch for on the horizon. Microsoft's virtualization offerings still won't be up to VMware's standards in 2 years, but what about 5 years??? Anyone here remember what happened with Novell? They had rock-solid server products (NetWare 3.11 and 4.x), but by the time NetWare 5 came out MS was already taking huge chunks of Novell revenue with Windows 2000 Server.
I'm not rooting for Microsoft either, I'm just saying that hopefully VMware will be smart enough to stay several steps ahead of Microsoft.
Trust me guys, VMware fully knows the threat that Microsoft presents. The question is can they stay far enough ahead and provide enough value to counter what will probably always be a "cheaper" solution from Microsoft.
In the short term (pre MS hypervisor) the answer is yes, who knows about the long term, anything can happen.
whatever way it goes in both the short and long term, it can only be a good thing for us - the poor suckers who use the stuff!