[itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

Mon Feb 27 15:02:51 EST 2012

Dayron Daugherty <ddaugherty at precept.org> wrote:

Windows 2008 standard you have to have licensing per virtual server.

Windows 2008 Enterprise comes with 4 licenses for 4 ***SERVER*** OSs of the same or lesser version.
It does not count for XP installs.

Windows 2008 Datacenter (licensed per CPU at about $330 per CPU for non-profits) offers ***UNLIMITED SERVER***  licensing for virtual machines hosted on the physical Datacenter server.

Again the licensing is for Windows server OSs of equal or lesser versions.

So yes 4 virtual server licenses are included with Enterprise.

From: Mike Hazelwood [mailto:mhazelwood at gracechurchsc.org]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:31 PM
To: discuss at itdiscuss.org
Subject: Re: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

I have a question based on Steve's response that stated "if you buy an W2k8r2 enterprise license you're entitled to run 4 VMs for free."

I have been told by my Dell rep. that I still needed to have a separate license for whatever OS I was running in the 4 VMs, whether it be a XP, 7, or  Server 2008 VM. I may be mis-reading the way it was stated below, but does anyone know which is correct?  Do the 4 free VMs just give you the free VM ability and not the OS itself?  Just wanting to clarify for myself as well as others.

Thanks,
Mike

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Steve Ollis <sollis at gmail.com<mailto:sollis at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Some things you should keep in mind when building this:
- regardless of hyper-v or VMware, CPU is not your initial chokepoint in most deployments - RAM then I/o then CPU..
- virtual box whilst free does not perform as well as VMware or hyper-v, nor does it have some of the niceties such as auto-starting VMs (this may hay changed..)
- if you buy an W2k8r2 enterprise license you're entitled to run 4 VMs for free.
- VMware has better memory management than hyper-v, but hyper-v on w2k8r2sp1 is VERY close
- vmware's h/w spec is stricter than hyper-v, and both hyperv and virtual box will run on any yum cha whitebox you have laying around
- MS do not provide support for NIC features such as trunking or vlan'ing as MS deem that to be the responsibility of the NIC vendor. This is not to say that it doesn't work (it does), but if you ever have to place a support call MS will ask you to go back to a standard config before they'll talk.
- to et the bet performance out of hyperv, you should consider going windows core. The caveat here is that you then need to install scvmm some place to manage the beast.

Of course the unix part of me would scream if I didn't at least mention QEMU or virtualbox on Ubuntu on your favourite Linux Destro.

Best regards

Stephen Ollis

Sent from my iPad

On 25/02/2012, at 6:36, "Dayron Daugherty" <ddaugherty at precept.org<mailto:ddaugherty at precept.org>> wrote:
Windows is known to corrode IC boards…especially RAID cards.

From: Kevin Brunson [mailto:kevinb at highergroundtech.com<mailto:kevinb at highergroundtech.com>]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:34 PM
To: 'discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>'
Subject: Re: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

I currently have over 30 Hyper-V servers deployed in-house and for customers with an average of 10 VMs each, some have over 25 guests.  We have had one server crash, and that was because the RAID controller died and corrupted the RAID set.  We have had at least a dozen Hyper-V servers go all the way through a 3 year lifecycle without ever having a single issue.  I am not going to jump in and say Hyper-V is better than VMWare, Virtual Box, Virtual Iron, etc, but I’m certainly going to defend Hyper-V because it has been absolutely rock-solid.  I never hesitate to quote it for a customer, and every time we sell something our company’s reputation is on the line.  If you put it on good hardware and configure it right (not hard, just follow best practices) Hyper-V is laser fast and completely reliable.

Kevin Brunson
Chief Technology Officer
Higher Ground Technologies
http://www.highergroundtech.com
901-333-7777<tel:901-333-7777>

From: blloyd at buskercom.com<mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com> [mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com]<mailto:[mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37 AM
To: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Subject: Re: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

Yea, but putting something critical on a Windows machine….really?

Bill Lloyd
IT Manager
<image001.jpg>

2567 Athens Hwy.
Gainesville, GA 30507
Phone: 770-417-1604<tel:770-417-1604> Ext.: 250
Fax:     770-417-1747<tel:770-417-1747>
Cell:     404-379-6963<tel:404-379-6963>

blloyd at buskercom.com<mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com>
This email and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete this entire communication immediately. Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. The sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any problems that may result from emails you receive.
From: Jason Hand [mailto:jhand at handfamilysite.com]<mailto:[mailto:jhand at handfamilysite.com]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37 AM
To: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Subject: Re: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

Updates get applied I only when you want and what you want.

Esx has updates too.  2008 R2 is rock solid.
On Feb 24, 2012 11:08 AM, <blloyd at buskercom.com<mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com>> wrote:
The thing that makes me nervous about hyper-v is that it runs on top of Windows.  What about all the “updates” and other Windows quirks?

I agree with running VMware server on Windows.  Very reliable system.

Bill Lloyd
IT Manager

<image002.jpg>

2567 Athens Hwy.
Gainesville, GA 30507
Phone: 770-417-1604<tel:770-417-1604> Ext.: 250
Fax:     770-417-1747<tel:770-417-1747>
Cell:     404-379-6963<tel:404-379-6963>

blloyd at buskercom.com<mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com>
This email and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete this entire communication immediately. Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. The sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any problems that may result from emails you receive.
From: Jason Hand [mailto:jhand at handfamilysite.com<mailto:jhand at handfamilysite.com>]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:51 AM
To: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Subject: Re: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

Not true if running Windows vm's on Windows 2008 r2 hyper-v.

When running Windows vm's on esxi  you lose some performance due to emulation from Linux. That isn't lost in hyper-v. Plus, things like driver updates and general ease of configuration are much easier in hyper-v.

Most studies today show that you can run Windows vm's on full blown 2008 r2 with negligible performance hit over core. Hyper-v allows for each vm to access the bus directly.

If you guys haven't seen hyper-v in action especially using the new virtual machine manager in system center then take a look. It is a game changer.

I would just use vmware server for what you are taking about personally. Very simple and works well on top of Windows.
On Feb 24, 2012 8:57 AM, "Huff, Brandon" <BrandonH at perimeter.org<mailto:BrandonH at perimeter.org>> wrote:
If I were you, I would find a way to run Vmware's ESXi as your foundational OS and not run VM's inside of Windows.  You'll find your experience and performance with virtual machines to be far greater with ESXi.

--
Brandon Huff
IT Director
Perimeter Church
678.405.2236<tel:678.405.2236> | brandonh at perimeter.org<mailto:brandonh at perimeter.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: J.R. Pitts [mailto:jrp at wjponline.com<mailto:jrp at wjponline.com>]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:17 PM
To: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Subject: [itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

Haven't really done much with virtualization, due to a general lack of need.

But I'm about to cover our campus with Unifi's, and was going to put the control app in a VM.

I'm going to upgrade a 3 year old (or so) 2003 server to 2008R2 to hold it.

My question is, if I'm only going to run 1, maybe 2 virtual desktops, is there a big reason to run Hyper-V, or should Virtual Box be fine?

Thanks,

J.R.

_______________________________________________
it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt<http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>

_______________________________________________
it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt<http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>

_______________________________________________
it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt<http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>
_______________________________________________
it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt

_______________________________________________
it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org<mailto:discuss at itdiscuss.org>
Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt<http://irc.freenode.net/citrt>