Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close

The virtual winner: VMware's ESX KOs a roughly built Hyper-V package

VMware wins due to manageability, stability that comes with maturity
By Tom Henderson and Brendan Allen, Network World Lab Alliance , Network World , 09/29/2008
Newsletter Signup
  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

When the dust settled in the lab after two long months of testing Microsoft’s Hyper-V and VMware’s ESX in the areas of performance, compatibility, management and security, it all boiled down to two issues: experience and religion.


See in-depth performance analysis
How we tested the virtualization management features
The issue of virtual compatibility
Archive of Network World tests

 


VMware ESX took home our Clear Choice award because in our performance and qualitative analysis of the hypervisor and the first tier of management tools offered by each vendors it showed depth and maturity while Microsoft’s Hyper-V’s components were both very Windows-focused and very rough.

Performance, as reported earlier this month, heavily favored VMware, although Hyper-V edged out ESX in a few contests.

On the compatibility front, Microsoft’s Hyper-V’s early lead in the number of supported hardware platforms (based on the widespread of support for Windows 2008 Server itself) is completely offset by a dearth of support for non-Windows virtual machine (VM) operating systems. While VMware’s supported hardware list is shorter, its support of a comparatively vast number of operating systems made us cheer (see compatibility story).

VMware’s Virtual Center management platform is also mature and straightforward in how an administrator can use it to control resident VMs on a VMware host. VMware’s Virtual Infrastructure Client (VIC) is the administrative user interface to the VMware Virtual Center platform.

Microsoft’s System Center-Virtual Machine Manager (SC-VMM) 2008 (we tested a very late beta version which Microsoft guaranteed was feature complete) works with very strong ties to the underlying Active Directory and has an interface that fits right into Microsoft’s System Center scheme, so administrators won’t have to work hard to understand how it works. That said, things from standard management tasks such as viewing simple settings for a VM host to much touted advances features like the ability to migrate ESX VMs to Hyper-V caused SC-VMM to crash repeatedly during testing.

In terms of the security options for these hypervisor environments, we found that both vendors need to beef up their authentication protection schemes and provide a designated, secure store for VM images.

  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print
Partner Content

Explore the Ultrium Edge

The powerful tape technology can address data security with tape encryption as well as long term data protection.

Find Out More

Disk and Tape Square Off

Discover what disk and tape really cost and which solution provides lower total cost of ownership and optimizes energy use for your organization

Download this White Paper

Don't Fall for the Myths

The Clipper Group explores the truth behind the myths of tape, digging into the misconceptions in the disk vs. tape debate.

Review this information

information examination

An examination of information security issues, methods and securing data with LTO-4 tape drive encryption

Read this analysis

Comments (7)
Login
Forgot your account info?

Virtual IronBy Anonymous on February 24, 2009, 10:00 amWhat does it take to get included on this list? Shouldn't Virtual Iron be on here. LiveMigration is excellent

Reply | Read entire comment

esx vs hiper-vBy Anonymous on January 9, 2009, 7:10 amesx

Reply | Read entire comment

Supported hardware list does not tell the full storyBy Anonymous on October 3, 2008, 3:19 amOne factor that seems to be forgotten when comparing hardware support for the platform, is that Hyper-V is only supported on hardware with virtualization support...

Reply | Read entire comment

Is it fair to knock-out a preproduction software with a releasedBy Anonymous on October 2, 2008, 6:24 pmThis comparison should have waited for production environments from both parties, in this way it is unfair, even in the title.

Reply | Read entire comment

No Doubt MSFT is behind, but this article is hardly compellling.By Anonymous on October 1, 2008, 8:50 pmI like VMWare and Hyper-V, but I wouldn't look to this article to build an educated opinion on which I should use. In the enterprise, there is room for both. If...

Reply | Read entire comment

View all comments

Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed