[itdiscuss] Hyper-V vs. Virtual Box

[Mike Hazelwood]

Thanks.  Great to know that.  I hadn't bought licensing yet, but was in the
processing of planning and budgeting for it.

Mike

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM, 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> 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> wrote:
> ****
>
> Windows is known to corrode IC boards…especially RAID cards.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Kevin Brunson [mailto:kevinb at highergroundtech.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2012 2:34 PM
> *To:* '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****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* blloyd at buskercom.com [mailto:blloyd at buskercom.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37 AM
> *To:* 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 Ext.: 250
> Fax:     770-417-1747
> Cell:     404-379-6963****
>
> *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]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37 AM
> *To:* 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> 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 Ext.: 250
> Fax:     770-417-1747
> Cell:     404-379-6963****
>
> *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]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2012 10:51 AM
> *To:* 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> 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 | brandonh at perimeter.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.R. Pitts [mailto:jrp at wjponline.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: 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 Mailing List:
> http://itdiscuss.org/discuss Internet Relay Chat: irc://
> irc.freenode.net/citrt
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: 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
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt****
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: 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
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> it discuss mailing list: discuss at itdiscuss.org
> Mailing List: http://itdiscuss.org/discuss
> Internet Relay Chat: irc://irc.freenode.net/citrt
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://optimus.thompsonic.com/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20120227/784c5bac/attachment-0001.html>