Bad article: Microsoft Virtual Server instead of VMware VI3?

[admin]

A few

days

weeks ago, SearchServerVirtualization asked <a href="http://servervirtualization.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/05/27/whos-using-microsoft-virtual-server-and-not-vmware/">is anyone actually using Microsoft Virtual Server in a substantive way</a>? Amongst the crickets chirping, <a href="http://servervirtualization.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/06/04/vmware-esx-configuration-cost-problems-spur-users-switch-to-microsoft-virtual-server/">one person did come forward</a> and said he switched because of cost and some perceived technical problems he encountered a few years ago[/i] while doing some testing. I suspect he should have come to VMTN instead.

Anyway, should you choose to particpate in the discussion over there, please be respectful, and remember that the question is not[/b] "is VI3 better than MSVS," because we all know it is. It's a bit of an apples-steak dinner comparison to even ask because of underlying technologies are so different (hosted vs bare-metal hypervisor, VMotion, DRS, etc.)

I think there are some errors and omissions in the article that could use correction -- the gentleman in question probably needed some help with his technical issues, since there are many people here happily running both Exchange and SQL Server on VI3, and he may not have appreciated the economics of VI3 (more VMs per physical box). So I think the article is a bit unfair, but the real question is legit -- who is using MSVS and why?

Update for clarification: The story over there is really a dog-bites-man sort of thing -- few people chose MSVS over VI3, and so that makes it a story, and we're going to see more of them as Viridian ships -- journalists need something to write about other than "VMware still wins." The challenge with this article is that it's really just about one person and his particular decision criteria were flawed. I'm really not suggesting VMTN members go over there and kick sand in their faces, but technical correctness and personal experiences are always interesting and relevant if you had something to say.

Message was edited by:

JohnTroyer

[admin]

My favorite comment on the thread so far is from VMTN member dstiles:

I normally don’t reply to blog posting, but this just happens to be the most skewed view of ESX I have heard in a while. Yes, I do agree that the cost of ESX is more than a free product. However, from my experience with Virtual Server 2005 R2, yes we do run it, we can only get 4-5 machines on a VS box. Nevermind the fact, if you crash the underlying host OS, you lose all machines in your virtualization stack. That being said, VS has it is place as a development environment where the cost of justifying even $100.00 for VMware workstation can be done.

However, when it comes to production, under ESX I find many faults to this guys claims. I run an environment where 50+ SQL databases are run as virtual workloads, an Exchange 2003 environment with 4000+ mailboxes, all but one of our Domain Controllers, all our critical applications which include public safety servers, and I have never ever come across an issue as referenced above.

I don’t doubt John’s experiences, I just think he may of had a bad consulting experience, bad equipment, or miss understanding of the real power of a properly configured Virtual Infrastructure environment. I just hope this wasn’t a “$upported” article by Microsoft. To be so far behind the virtualization curve, they seem to be doing whatever they can to keep buzz about a product that is still not in the same league as VMware and others in the virtualization game.

Good luck John, hopefully the Microsoft solution does far you better, I don’t wish long nights on any fellow IT worker.

Comment by David Siles — June 6, 2007 @ 8:46 pm

[sbeaver]

Nice!!

[esiebert7625]

Here's another thread going on that same article...

http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?messageID=661468&#661468

[mreferre]

John,

I have always found the current marketshare of the MS product quite interesting (isn't this in the range of 15-20%?). In fact I must admit I haven't bumped into many customers that are using MS VS (certainly not 20% of the customers I meet so they must all be either in Asia or in the US..... ).

Joking aside what I can say is that the few customers I met that are using MSVS are doing that because they are a very committed MS shop. When asked "why MSVS over VMware technology" they would usually respond "well ... it is the way it is" giving the impression that they have been somehow forced by the "situation" to take that path rather than by the "technology value". Expect more with Viridian because MS could than leverage their position as well as a reasonable good product (vs the toy they have today).

I guess it is a waste of time to even attempt to comment on that article.

>.....will be migrating over to Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, over the next 45 days. TQL — up to now a VMware shop — will

only use ESX in the lab

ESX for the lab and MSVS for production ? This is not a technical argument ... this goes against the laws of physic. It's like me trying to say that there is a customer in 2007 in the process of migrating to OS/2 because Windows NT 3.51 have had issues/limitations.

Innovation is going to be a key thing when it comes to your competition as you will see more and more situations like these with Viridian. As I have posted on my blog a few weeks ago you have the potential to win this battle but this depens on many factors one of which is leading edge technology but, unfortunately, not limited to that.

Good luck !

Massimo.

[Anders]

John,

I have always found the current marketshare of the MS

product quite interesting (isn't this in the range of

15-20%?). In fact I must admit I haven't bumped into

many customers that are using MS VS (certainly not

20% of the customers I meet so they must all be

either in Asia or in the US..... ).

Last year I think it was 17% of the install base,

and of course 0% of the revenue...

Quite asthonishing really, considering VMware Server beats MSVS

in every aspect if you're looking for a free alternative.

So why is that?

\- MS marketing capture their mindset (gotta give credit to the marketing machine at MS)

\- some MS FUD (only supported on MSVS)

\- MSVS is good enough (lets face it, some have pretty light requirements)

\- confidence in a large vendor

\- incompetence (I call ignorance on the mentioned article)

Just a few theories from the top of my mind.

Any other takers?

\- Anders

[mreferre]

It's a mix of those I think.

MS is MS ..... at some places what they say is just taken as law.

Massimo.