Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server?

Posted by Cliff on from the hare-vs-the-gorilla dept.

Saqib Ali asks: "I m sure most of you have heard that Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC/Server, have been acquired by Microsoft. Based on the technology acquired, MS has developed a new product called Microsoft Virtual Server, using which a Windows Server 2003 based server can run multiple operating systems concurrently. I am doing a preliminary analysis of using MS Virtual Server vs. running VMware ESX Server 2.0 on Clustered Linux Environment. Both solutions offer a way of running multiple OSes in a virtual environment using the same underlying OS (Windows 2003 or Linux). Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor. However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

6 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server by DA-MAN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why trust a company to produce a virtual server, when they have yet to produce a working actual server!!!

    ust my .02 cents.

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  2. What I want to know is... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Funny
    scoff mode

    Do you still have to pay SCO $699 for each Linux instance that you run. Or are they covered by the Microsoft Unix license.

    /scoff mode

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:What I want to know is... by the_other_one · · Score: 1, Funny

      Could you have multiple instances on linux running on a Windows box at $699 a pop. You could create a beowulf cluster and have the worlds most expensive, slowest, and most unstable super computer.

      --
      134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    2. Re:What I want to know is... by Josh+Booth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....

      Ooooohhhh, my head hurts.

  3. A major downside by Radical+Rad · · Score: 3, Funny
    Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

    Yeah, if I "consolidate" all my servers onto a Windows 2003 box running Connectix, then my servers (all non-MS) would go down every time some script kiddy wants to show the world how 3l337 he is with a new worm.

    1. Re:A major downside by Radical+Rad · · Score: 3, Funny
      Offcourse if I consolidate all my server/services on Windows 2003

      Was that a Freudian slip? Either you or your subconcious is very clever.

      Seriously, there have been enough MS exploits that use legitimate ports and spread so quickly that something would get through and take out the whole thing.

      I have heard the promises that people could consolidate many servers and domains to a lesser number running on one of these things but I can't help but chuckle at the thought of running windows in windows on windows in a production environment. This MS Virual Server is just a way to get people to pay more money for what they were promised years ago: a stable platform with separate memory spaces to keep apps from stepping on each other. Now instead of an nt server running 5 apps you can pay for an "enterprise" nt server and ms terminal server and 5 more copies of regular nt server plus the 5 apps and all the various "client access" licenses. But stability might be somewhat improved. Gartner should put that in their TCO pipe and smoke it... instead of crack.