I was guessing that the overhead of running the host Windows O/S would inevitably introduce a performance drag.
What's even more surprising is that Hyper-V runs quite well on Windows. Windows never WAS the problem in performance, it's always been drivers. That's why I defend Microsoft whenever people start the whole bashing process, because 3rd party developers are their own worst enemy. It's like having a mall with a lot of stores.
If Apple did it they would certify each one, and it would be THEIR product and development running it, but it would be more expensive.
MS would allow EACH store to do whatever they wanted, MS just provides the environment to work in and space.
There are pros and cons to both, but Windows problem wasn't performance, it's USERS that cause the system to drag because they weren't forced to do things correctly, like being administrators on a box, and in lieu of complicated security policies, Windows was designed to be user friendly and simple. Later people exploited it, but it's not really MS fault, developers of code were not held to a higher standard. Now that's changing, and things are better, but Apple is FAR from perfect. They have their own issues that we never hear, simply because MS is a much bigger player.
ESX is the same way, the hardware is the space and work environment, Windows manages those stores. ESX does the same thing, but in much more enforced, strict manner. ESX is more limited to what hardware you can install it, Windows is more forgiving, but both are at the mercy of the hardware. Neither restrict or limit performance. If the hardware can do virtualization, it will run as fast as the VM's can manage.
So in principle we could continue to use our Windows Server environments for VMWare Server hosts, and simply increase the hardware specs to improve performance? That would be extremely convenient.
Yes that is correct, VM Ware and Microsoft compete on the same platform but at different levels. VM Ware says they have a higher consolidation (meaning denser population) in the same space as MS, which is true. VM Ware (ESX) can share memory. Hyper-V cannot.
But then Hyper-V is certified to run on a wider range of hardware (even older). If it can run Windows 2008 it can run Hyper-V.
There have also been performance tests done, Hyper-V is just as fast as ESX, but ESX can do MORE on the same host, that's where the ROI comes in, you save on hardware, but you have to BUY new hardware that's on that VM Ware list, which is why during times of tightening budgets, people will seek out Hyper-V, no hardware refresh is necessary.
