Hyper-V is not hype

Microsoft did something that it rarely does last week when it announced availability of its Hyper-V server virtualization technology months ahead of schedule. Unlike Microsoft Virtual Server, which ran as an application, Hyper-V is a true hypervisor capable of hosting multiple instances of Windows and even Suse Linux.

OK, so Microsoft is in the game, but can it compete with server virtualization king VMware? Yup. According to ESG Research, 69 percent of organizations planning to adopt server virtualization are considering Microsoft technology, 59 percent are considering VMware, 10 percent are contemplating XenSource, and 4 percent are kicking the server virtualization tires with Virtual Iron.

Microsoft understands that server virtualization is a strategic IT initiative that has the potential to really disrupt the server-licensing landscape. In other words, server virtualization could take a bite out of Windows sales, if VMware wins in a landslide. Microsoft just won't let that happen.

As Hyper-V gains visibility, my colleague Mark Bowker expects Microsoft to:

1. Throw money and programs at its OEMs
   Microsoft will use its vast resources to run joint-marketing programs, educate customers, and generate leads with server vendors such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM. The goal? Maximize visibility of Hyper-V in a hurry.

2. Use management as a Hyper-V complement
   Microsoft is currently in beta with its System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM), a management platform that controls Hyper-V and VMware ESX. As this becomes available, Microsoft can play a low-cost management card to introduce its hypervisor into VMware accounts.

3. Target the midmarket
   VMware is surprisingly strong in the SMB space, along with feisty Virtual Iron. Nevertheless, Microsoft has an army of channel partners and Windows consultants, who should be able to quickly penetrate this Windows-centric market segment.

   VMware is way too ubiquitous and strong to be "Netscaped," but Microsoft will certainly make the server virtualization space more competitive--in a hurry.

   Jon Oltsik is a senior analyst at the Enterprise Strategy Group.

[servermaker]

This is welcome news. VMware has enjoyed its day in the sun. Prices must drop substantially for VMware to stay in the game. There may be a large installed base of VMware users, but swapping out hypervisors is a no-brainer. The most exciting thing about Microsoft's entry is the availability of robust management tools. People complain about the quality of Microsoft technology, but if you've spent more than five minutes using VMware's VirtualCenter "product" you truly understand the definition of crappy software.

[Penguinisto]

"but swapping out hypervisors is a no-brainer." Unless MSFT's product can convert .vmdk and .vmx files, it'll require a ton of work to do. ------- "The most exciting thing about Microsoft's entry is the availability of robust management tools." I have those already - it only requires a competent setup to make it all work. Sure there's room for improvement, but that's the case in any suite... even a new and untested one like Microsoft's.

[Penguinisto]

Some points to consider from someone who plays with this stuff on a daily basis... A real big problem that Microsoft will face in this game is the hefty underlying Windows OS that's required to run it... ESX uses a stripped and very agile Linux-based kernel to control it, and Xen is drop-easy to configure the same way. If MSFT is going to require Server 2008, then it'll mean less resources to go towards the VMs. Another thing Microsoft will learn very quickly is that if I can get 15-20 different VMs going on a beefy server with VMWare ESX, MSFT's product had damned well better meet or beat that figure, at least if it hopes to compete. Sure, it's cute and all to test it out with one or two instances, but jack it up to 15 active guest machines and let's see what it can really do. Something else to consider: Unless MSFT has tools to convert .vmdk to whatever they use, they simply will not be able to capture much (if any) of the existing VMWare marketshare. Unless MSFT has something like VMotion (among other features), they won't be able to do anything at all in the enterprise. Surveys be damned, it all still comes down to the bottom line... if Microsoft's product can't compete on value, they won't be able to capture the market no matter what it costs.

"...and EVEN Suse Linux"

'nuf sed!!!! OMG, THEY'LL SUPPORT 1 LINUX DISTRO!!!!

Please call back when you guys get serious.

[AlphaAlien]

uh what?

VMWare ESX and Hyper-V are not directly comparable. And looking at technology and implementing are far different.

Hyper-V has MAJOR deficiencies in the 1.0 release along with additional licensing fee's depending on the SKU of Server 2008 you choose for it.

-No hot swap for virtual machines. Thats right, your server goes down, you?re hosed, no VMotion for automated recovery and movement.
-No Hot Plug support for virtual machines. You can?t add most hardware to a virtual machine thats live, memory, storage, cpu pooling, none of it is supported on a live virtual machine. ESX on the other hand, has all of that.
-It only supports 16 logical cores per server. This sounds like a lot today at least. Until you think about how hard were pushing into multi-core, pretty soon you?ll hit that limit in 1 or 2 cpu?s. Yet this is supposed to be future proof and better?

Hyper-V is about 5 years behind the competition. Sure small businesses going for consolidation might go for it, it's cheaper than buying additional chassis. But it's not scalable into the medium and large business market as it stands.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/compare-specs.aspx you can see on Microsoft's own site the number of baseline virtual instances you're allowed by sku.

Not sure where the analysts are getting the idea as of late that hyper-v will magically make vmware dissapear. VMWare at this point is the ipod of the virtualization market, just meeting it (which hyper-v is working towards and may reach in 2.0) isn't enough, it needs to outshine it in every respect from management, to cost of ownership. It does not meet any requisite goals for entering the market at an appreciable level currently.

[DrtyDogg]

the Virtual Image Use Rights that you are reffering to are the number of virtual machines you are aloud to run without purchasing additional licences. Not the total number of virtual machines that can run under the OS which is only limited by what your hardware can handle.

[Penguinisto]

Agreed - they would've done a better job comparing Hyper-V to Parallels, Win4Lin, or other consumer-level virtual services... because it definitely has nothing that an enterprise can use.

[lleather]

Anytime you hear the words, "robust and Microsoft" in the same sentence...run! :)

Furthermore, VMWare Vitrual Center...is a good mature product. Why don't you tell the truth and uncover your biases $$ servermaker?

Just remember this: What does Microsoft call a beta tester? Enduser! And anyone and everyone in IT knows that's a fact so you have fun bro. Maybe I might look at Microsoft's offering in a year if their lucky after you've worked out all the bugs with them.

[RompStar_420]

Microsoft will support Linux SUSE only, because Suse Linux is their backup plan and they are in a Strategic relationship with Novel/Suse. Ubuntu is great, I love it.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000121

[Penguinisto]

That's a problem right there. Xen and VMWare allow me to run whatever the hell I want in a VM. :)

[onedamnearp]

Cost is less of an issue, at least not from a partnership perspective, as you pay for the host OS but installs on Hyper-V virtuals are "no cost" additions (at least on Datacenter Edition). That means I can run 12 - 2008 Enterprise installs on 12 VHDs and only have to pay the monthly on my base OS. With VMWare, I pay for all 12 OS installs.

In addition, though I'd have to get 100% confirmation, I believe Hyper V runs on Windows Server Core, which is a very light (read "non GUI") version of Windows Server. Therefore, much of the overhead is gone.

I realize this is all still new, and therefore subject to much change, but it is an exciting development in the virtualization world nonetheless.

[Ibidibidibidubi]

If you buy a WS Datacenter license for each ESX host you have unlimited installs as well.
Without the enterprise features such as HA, DRS and the VMFS filesystem, Hyper-V is a long way from being anything useful to a large company except as a lab toy and toy for the desktop team to play with. Everyone will explore it, but anyone currently invested in VI isn't going to see any real value in Hyper-V as a replacement.