Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Why trust a company to produce a virtual server, when they have yet to produce a working actual server!!!
.02 cents.
ust my
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
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
http://Lenny.com
Do you still have to pay SCO $699 for each Linux instance that you run. Or are they covered by the Microsoft Unix license.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
it has it's own BSD style kernel which does more sophisticated (fair) scheduling and memory management (on-demand page sharing between VMs). People think it's linux based because it has the GNU toolchain ported to it (ie, they're morons).
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
You will still be locked into a single vendor; the one that supplies VMware, which is not Free Software; while this company doesn't have the reputation of jettisoning products on a marketing department's whim, you still need to worry about what happens if the company in question goes under, or is purchased by an aggressive competitor, like Microsoft.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
it's BSD style, not "based on" FreeBSD.
How we know is more important than what we know.
VMWare works, but Microsoft is trying to make you buy a license for every virtual image on the machine.
so.... VMWare($300) on top of windows (at least $100) and
on top of VMWare copies of windows (at least $100) and any copies of office or anything like that (X dollars) TIMES the number of virtual machines that you have saved.
Or you could run virtual images of linux or whatever.
But if you bought VMWare with the purpose of being able to inexpensively and quickly deal with multiple Images (for corporate imaging testing or what have you) or multiple MS operating systems.. then they try and rope you into a MSDN license.
It's nutty
But this guy is looking at VMware ESX Server 2 and MS Virtual Server. You're using the price for Workstation, which is probably much less than ESX (anyone got a quote?). Virtual PC 5 (for Windows) was approximately $130.