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?"

1 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