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

I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[DA-MAN]

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

ust my .02 cents.

What I want to know is...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

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

ESX does not run under linux

[QuantumG]

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).

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Vmware ESX server does not rely on Linux kernel modules for hardware support. It does rely on ESX kernel modules for hardware support.

The console OS is Linux and can see any device Linux is capable of seeing with the proper driver. However, if the ESX kernel does not support your device (RAID controller, NIC, etc.) you can't assign it for use by virtual machines. Currently ESX server only supports a small subset of devices in comparison to Linux. The ESX kernel does use the kernel module paradigm, but that is as far as the similarity goes.

The console OS (Redhat Linux) serves primarily as a bootloader for the ESX kernel. It does run processes which aid in I/O for Remote Console sessions among other things, but that's it. The ESX kernel sees the console OS as just another virtual machine.

A major downside

[Radical Rad]

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.

Re:A major downside

[Radical Rad]

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.

Re:VMWare works

[foooo]

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