Why is Hyper-V so painful?

Grentz said:
It doesnt matter how it is installed, it is how it runs, and it still runs as a Type 1. I have also played with performance, and Hyper-V is very comparable if not better in some metrics than the other type 1 hypervisors.

Hyper-V role, while installed after the OS load, is not simply an application that is installed on to windows.
Click to expand...

Installing the role manually isn't something you even need to worry about if you're using a deployment tool like MDT or SCCM.

I can even configure MDT to recognize the MAC addresses of my Hyper-V servers so if I PXE boot them to install the OS, it automatically selects the Hyper-V role during network install.

30 minutes later I have a freshly installed and patched Hyper-V server, joined to the domain, with any applications I need installed all ready to go.
 
Child of Wonder said:
Installing the role manually isn't something you even need to worry about if you're using a deployment tool like MDT or SCCM.

I can even configure MDT to recognize the MAC addresses of my Hyper-V servers so if I PXE boot them to install the OS, it automatically selects the Hyper-V role during network install.

30 minutes later I have a freshly installed and patched Hyper-V server, joined to the domain, with any applications I need installed all ready to go.
Click to expand...

I can do the same with PXE, in less then 1-3 minutes with Vsphere..

Hyper V performance is noticibly slower to me (especially on the install of the guest os). I found it also requires way more configuration and tweaking compared to vmware. It also requires sccm which in itself is not cheap. Also the advanced features do require fairly good knowledge of MS products are just not inside the hyper v manager.

I can see why hyperv is still not the number 1 choice for datacenters or big iron. (Except MS itself) As far as entire datacenter virtualization goes vmware is much much better.
 
Hyper-V does not require SCCM. But then again, any windows shop should be running SCCM anyways for clients.

I would not recommend it for a big data center still, but I really do like the suite and if you just need to run windows stuff, it is fanastic.

I have found performance to be equal or better than VMWare and Xenserver. With server 2012 especially.
 
Grentz said:
Hyper-V does not require SCCM. But then again, any windows shop should be running SCCM anyways for clients.

I would not recommend it for a big data center still, but I really do like the suite and if you just need to run windows stuff, it is fanastic.

I have found performance to be equal or better than VMWare and Xenserver. With server 2012 especially.
Click to expand...

If you want the good features of HyperV you need SCCM, if you have more then 3 nodes with out sccm your going to be doing a lot of silly administration. Not every shop uses SCCM, there is Kaseya, Dell, N-able, etc..

I disagree on the performance. It maybe be better with Xen but so far its not better then Vmware from the metrics that I have captured.
HyperV's biggest advantage is the price, data center functionality sucks.

My biggest pet peeves is that MS doesn't have appliances for a lot of the functionality or running, managing, hyperv cluster.

I deal with Mixed environments, I have Unix, Linux, Solaris, older Windows platforms. Some clients are ok to use Hyperv but 60%-70% are not. The worst part is that management becomes very difficult and expensive.
 
Wrench00 said:
I can do the same with PXE, in less then 1-3 minutes with Vsphere..

Hyper V performance is noticibly slower to me (especially on the install of the guest os). I found it also requires way more configuration and tweaking compared to vmware. It also requires sccm which in itself is not cheap. Also the advanced features do require fairly good knowledge of MS products are just not inside the hyper v manager.

I can see why hyperv is still not the number 1 choice for datacenters or big iron. (Except MS itself) As far as entire datacenter virtualization goes vmware is much much better.
Click to expand...

SCCM is not required. SCVMM isn't even required. One could build a 64 node cluster complete with HA, Live Migration, Live Storage Migration, and Replication for $0. Several clients I speak to look at the number zero, then look at what they're spending for Test/Dev/UAT VMware licensing and support and say Hyper-V is "good enough."

As for performance, I have two environments running right behind me with identical hardware. CPU, RAM, network, and IO performance (all VMs on same spindles) is nearly identical.

I think VMware is the superior product but Hyper-V 2012 is no slouch. Hyper-V is going to see rapid growth the next few years as customers move part or all of their hypervisor infrastructure to it for pure cost savings.
 
Child of Wonder said:
SCCM is not required. SCVMM isn't even required. One could build a 64 node cluster complete with HA, Live Migration, Live Storage Migration, and Replication for $0. Several clients I speak to look at the number zero, then look at what they're spending for Test/Dev/UAT VMware licensing and support and say Hyper-V is "good enough."

As for performance, I have two environments running right behind me with identical hardware. CPU, RAM, network, and IO performance (all VMs on same spindles) is nearly identical.

I think VMware is the superior product but Hyper-V 2012 is no slouch. Hyper-V is going to see rapid growth the next few years as customers move part or all of their hypervisor infrastructure to it for pure cost savings.
Click to expand...

As some one that does a lot of Automation and managment of systems its almost imposible to do what I need with out sccm.

You actually have to spend money on hyperv its misinformation. You can't have HA and all the thing you need with out purchasing Windows Servers. So its not free, its just included in the price of the OS. This is a misconception.

I spend nothing on Vmware for testing/Dev, all you need is a VCP and you will be entitled to NFR of almost everything that Vmware has, also if you have vcp you can also purchase IUL. So the cost really is close to zero.
Its also quite cheap, cheaper then MS for my Silver Partnership which I pay 2k a year for, I pay 250 to vmware. Yes you could have Technet which is still close to 380 dollars.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. I deal with systems that are 200+ users the price is negligible between VMWare and HyperV.
 
Wrench00 said:
As some one that does a lot of Automation and managment of systems its almost imposible to do what I need with out sccm.

You actually have to spend money on hyperv its misinformation. You can't have HA and all the thing you need with out purchasing Windows Servers. So its not free, its just included in the price of the OS. This is a misconception.

I spend nothing on Vmware for testing/Dev, all you need is a VCP and you will be entitled to NFR of almost everything that Vmware has, also if you have vcp you can also purchase IUL. So the cost really is close to zero.
Its also quite cheap, cheaper then MS for my Silver Partnership which I pay 2k a year for, I pay 250 to vmware. Yes you could have Technet which is still close to 380 dollars.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. I deal with systems that are 200+ users the price is negligible between VMWare and HyperV.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's free. Hyper-V Server 2012 Core costs $0 and can do all the things I mentioned.

Are you aware that NFR is not for customers to use for their own Test/Dev environments? It's for demo and evaluation purposes. Customers cannot use them to avoid licensing their hosts that house their Test/Dev/etc. VMs.

http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/mi...nguage=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1012581
 
Child of Wonder said:
Yes, it's free. Hyper-V Server 2012 Core costs $0 and can do all the things I mentioned.

Are you aware that NFR is not for customers to use for their own Test/Dev environments? It's for demo and evaluation purposes. Customers cannot use them to avoid licensing their hosts that house their Test/Dev/etc. VMs.

http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/mi...nguage=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1012581
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it means.That's why I said if the customer has a vcp. You also managed to not pay attention to IUL. Also I am VPP so I can just rent the customer the software from VMWare its just like SPLA.
Doesn't change the fact the if you need to pay for VMWare stuff you also have to pay MS for stuff as well.
HyperV might be free so is Vsphere, if you want additional functionality "unlocked" YOU NEED licensed MS stuff Period end of story.
And NO hyper V server advanced features can't function without an Active Directory how are you going to have AD with paying for Windows Server License?(Wether its through technet or MSDN) Even managing a single host has to be done through RSAT so again you need to pay for the OS your going to run that on.


I am a bit puzzled why you are having such a hard time comprehending this.I think your taking one or two line of MS Marketing to literally.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmay...er-2012-cluster-part-1-of-2.aspx#.UaZXQpzekl0


Even if your doing develop software or test especially on a Windows Platform you need to usually have Technet or MSDN. So no there is nothing free. You want free get KVM.
 
Wrench00 said:
I know exactly what it means.That's why I said if the customer has a vcp. You also managed to not pay attention to IUL. Also I am VPP so I can just rent the customer the software from VMWare its just like SPLA.
Doesn't change the fact the if you need to pay for VMWare stuff you also have to pay MS for stuff as well.
HyperV might be free so is Vsphere, if you want additional functionality "unlocked" YOU NEED licensed MS stuff Period end of story.
And NO hyper V server advanced features can't function without an Active Directory how are you going to have AD with paying for Windows Server License?(Wether its through technet or MSDN) Even managing a single host has to be done through RSAT so again you need to pay for the OS your going to run that on.


I am a bit puzzled why you are having such a hard time comprehending this.I think your taking one or two line of MS Marketing to literally.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmay...er-2012-cluster-part-1-of-2.aspx#.UaZXQpzekl0


Even if your doing develop software or test especially on a Windows Platform you need to usually have Technet or MSDN. So no there is nothing free. You want free get KVM.
Click to expand...

If an employee of a company has a VCP they're still not supposed to use NFR licenses for running hosts for the business' Test/Dev needs. I'm not talking about an independent consultant using the NFR licenses, I'm talking about Wal-Mart (just pulling a random company out of the air) using NFR licenses on the ESXi hosts that run their Test/Dev/UAT web server farm.

Yes, failover clustering requires Active Directory. For the vast majority of companies already using Active Directory that's not an issue. If a company is using OpenLDAP, eDirectory (shudder), or another product then Hyper-V is not a good fit for them unless they're willing to create an AD domain simply for Hyper-V which would require purchasing MS Server licenses. Without the AD domain you can't create a failover cluster but can still use Live Migration, Storage Live Migration, and Replication.

I'm comprehending everything fine (though it is taxing) but when someone speaks out of their butt about a product I'm familiar with (Hyper-V, in this case) I'm going to correct them.
 
Child of Wonder said:
If an employee of a company has a VCP they're still not supposed to use NFR licenses for running hosts for the business' Test/Dev needs. I'm not talking about an independent consultant using the NFR licenses, I'm talking about Wal-Mart (just pulling a random company out of the air) using NFR licenses on the ESXi hosts that run their Test/Dev/UAT web server farm.

Yes, failover clustering requires Active Directory. For the vast majority of companies already using Active Directory that's not an issue. If a company is using OpenLDAP, eDirectory (shudder), or another product then Hyper-V is not a good fit for them unless they're willing to create an AD domain simply for Hyper-V which would require purchasing MS Server licenses. Without the AD domain you can't create a failover cluster but can still use Live Migration, Storage Live Migration, and Replication.

I'm comprehending everything fine (though it is taxing) but when someone speaks out of their butt about a product I'm familiar with (Hyper-V, in this case) I'm going to correct them.
Click to expand...

I never stated anything incorrectly.


Please double check your resources and your information, before accusing some not knowing what they are talking about or spreading fud.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831435.aspx

Common requirements for any form of live migration:
Two (or more) servers running Hyper-V that:

Support hardware virtualization.

Are using processors from the same manufacturer (for example, all AMD or all Intel).

Belong to either the same Active Directory domain, or to domains that trust each other.

Virtual machines must be configured to use virtual hard disks or virtual Fibre Channel disks (no physical disks).

Use of a private network is recommended for live migration network traffic.
 
Wrench00 said:
I never stated anything incorrectly.


Please double check your resources and your information, before accusing some not knowing what they are talking about or spreading fud.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831435.aspx

Common requirements for any form of live migration:
Two (or more) servers running Hyper-V that:

Support hardware virtualization.

Are using processors from the same manufacturer (for example, all AMD or all Intel).

Belong to either the same Active Directory domain, or to domains that trust each other.

Virtual machines must be configured to use virtual hard disks or virtual Fibre Channel disks (no physical disks).

Use of a private network is recommended for live migration network traffic.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm incorrect about not needing Active Directory for Live Migration. My mistake. :(

However, what I said stands: for the vast of majority of companies already running Active Directory this is a moot point. They already have the infrastructure in place to support Hyper-V and don't need to spend anything extra to run Hyper-V and can, if they so choose, run Hyper-V Core and not spend anything for the hypervisor.

What you did state incorrectly was the need for SCCM. Does a Hyper-V shop need to purchase other products for automation, management, deployment, etc. like System Center? Of course. The same is true with vSphere (vCAC, vCOP, Chargeback, vCM, etc.).

I've run cost analysis for clients between both hypervisors and, for the time being, Hyper-V is cheaper (even if they had to buy 2x Server Standard licenses to create two DCs), especially when comparing the full System Center suite to the vCloud Suite. I'm sure that will change as time goes by.
 
I think we misunderstood each other, I apologize my mistake. I understand the costs on both sides.

Yes I know the price TCO and ROI. I am a service provider I am all to familiar with this.

The whole point that I tried to get accross is that HyperV maybe free but its misleading in those claims (kinda like the OP of this thread stated). Its really not free. If you have No AD its not better then the free Version of Vsphere. (The op even stated its a pain in the ass to setup)

Where the costs do go higher is with SCCM (I couldn't imagine not using this in 3+ node deployment). If you want to really do certain things it get stupid expenisve, either vmware or hyperv.
Also vmware now is including vcop with essentials which is cool. Essentials Plus got changes now has backup, vsa, vcop. If your not just a windows shop (or legacy) these is a nice feature.
I hope Vmware does release more features in their packages.
 
Wrench00 said:
I think we misunderstood each other, I apologize my mistake. I understand the costs on both sides.

Yes I know the price TCO and ROI. I am a service provider I am all to familiar with this.

The whole point that I tried to get accross is that HyperV maybe free but its misleading in those claims (kinda like the OP of this thread stated). Its really not free. If you have No AD its not better then the free Version of Vsphere. (The op even stated its a pain in the ass to setup)

Where the costs do go higher is with SCCM (I couldn't imagine not using this in 3+ node deployment). If you want to really do certain things it get stupid expenisve, either vmware or hyperv.
Also vmware now is including vcop with essentials which is cool. Essentials Plus got changes now has backup, vsa, vcop. If your not just a windows shop (or legacy) these is a nice feature.
I hope Vmware does release more features in their packages.
Click to expand...

My uncle works for a company where everything is Linux. I talked to him about virtualization and he doesn't run any hypervisor at all. We talked about VMware and Hyper-V and he brought up that they have no Active Directory. In his case, while he could install Hyper-V Core he'd also need to drop about $1,000 list for 2 Windows Server Standard licenses to get an AD domain going. Like you said, the hypervisor itself is free, but for those that aren't a MS shop, there are prerequisites that do cost money.

But that's probably not an accident. :)

The hypervisor wars are gearing up and I'm excited to see the innovation and changes that come forth from it. I'm a long time VMware guy and customers asking about Hyper-V piqued my interest in it. I think we'll be seeing it pop up in datacenters more and more. I'm also confident VMware will push their feature lead forward even more and find ways to reduce costs.
 
Why are people talking about the cost every time someone states that hyper-v is hard to deal with when setting it up. Its not like hyper-v comes with fairies that set it up for you, so its not always about cost. And something that has a prerequisite that costs more then another product is not cheaper then said product. That's like saying you got a car for free so its better, but at the same time you forget to include the cost of gas, insurance, and maintenance. This post is about complexity in setup, not how much or little is in your wallet after all the headache medicine that you had to buy.
 
KILL____ said:
Why are people talking about the cost every time someone states that hyper-v is hard to deal with when setting it up. Its not like hyper-v comes with fairies that set it up for you, so its not always about cost. And something that has a prerequisite that costs more then another product is not cheaper then said product. That's like saying you got a car for free so its better, but at the same time you forget to include the cost of gas, insurance, and maintenance. This post is about complexity in setup, not how much or little is in your wallet after all the headache medicine that you had to buy.
Click to expand...

No said that there are fairies the op stated that hyper-v is a pain in the ass and it is if you don't have an ad. VMware or xen compared are stupid easy.
 
We began evaluating Hyper-V 2012 recently and we are a vmware shop. While there are some nice features i would like in vmware like virtual HBAs managing hyper-v just seems a little too disjointed and not straight forward. Like I hate that you can only do some things in the hyper-v manager vs VMM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top