VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server?

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?"

Comments

License?

[LennyDotCom]

Virtual Server helps resolve the issues associated with older servers that are out of warranty and diminishing support for earlier hardware and operating systems.
That sounds fine but if youir running NT4 on an old server and want to move it to a new box running win2003 on a vitual server do you have to buy a new license?
and what about the fact that M$ has or wil stop supporting NT4

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[BusterB]

We have two ESX servers running at work. They both came with Redhat as the core OS. The Linux kernel appears to just use a small chunk of memory and is modified to allow processes to grab memory external to their normally allowed virtual address space, while the ESX server software apparently manages the rest of the memory itself. But, the server also runs as a Linux process. It definitely relies in Linux's driver support to support the underlying real hardware. It's neat; they have more than just the GNU toolchain in the Linux instance; there is Perl too, and everything else you would expect.

Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[DA-MAN]

I don't remember Connectix having a Virtual Server Product. They did have Virtual PC, but that was mostly aimed at running on Mac's.

I wonder how Microsoft will bastardize this one, Visio use to be nice before it became Microsoft Visio....

Once again, just my $0.02

Re:Still a Single Vendor

[swdunlop]

That is definately a key point, as there would be two licenses to worry about, instead of just one. If Microsoft terminated either product, your company would need to migrate. That being said, our site has been very happy using Linux+GSX for hosting multiple Win2k servers.