Any comparison of Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware vSphere requires a lot of different aspects to take into account. First, their target customers and the deployment feature combinations are different from different models. The number of actual machine instances is different, and deployment requirements also vary greatly, and these requirements also bring different infrastructure and configuration options. Second, this is related to management issues, and management is closely related to the scale of installation. In addition, we will consider some other issues, including cost, performance, scalability, and availability.
Target customers:
VMware still has the advantage when it comes to high-end, large-scale virtualization customers. VMware's various features such as distributed resource scheduling (DRS) meet the needs of large environments to run a large number of VM devices under a variety of resource requirements, and in another case, we can only nod and praise Microsoft. If a small and medium-sized enterprise purchases Windows Server 2012, it will be meaningless to purchase VMware vSphere to virtualize some specific functions.
Under what circumstances will it make sense to use VMware? This is a difficult question. Hyper-V 2012 has added a lot of new features in SMB 3.0, and even the smallest enterprises can support highly available clusters using low-cost servers and commercial SAS disk drives. The host-to-host VM replication feature of Hyper-V 2012 also provides an additional level of redundancy, which was not supported in past versions. From this perspective, the showdown between the two was leveled.
At the same time, VMware has a similar feature, namely, using the same Microsoft Shadow Copy Service (VSS) behind the scenes. These similarities and many other similarities make it very problematic to compare the two products. Ultimately, their products all perform well and users can adjust to meet most of any virtualization needs.
Management tools:
In the low-end case, Microsoft provides users with basic supporting tools on Hyper-V manager as installable items for Windows Server 2012. VMware's traditional management tool, VMware vSphere client is a free client that users must install on their personal computers. Both provide services to connect to remote hosts, allowing users to manage any system in the network.
Some functions cannot be implemented in the basic management tools of the two products. The advantage of Microsoft Hyper-V Manager is that, for example, it can move into a virtual machine tool, then enter it, and clone or copy the virtual machine tool. With VMware, users must connect to vCenter Server while moving in or cloning a virtual machine tool. However, out of respect for the hypervisor, the VMware vSphere client provides more information about the host server and the client virtual machine server. VMware scored a point in this comparison thanks to a more detailed chart introduction.
VMware provides vCenter Server for managing large installations, however Microsoft provides System Center 2012. The latest public vCenter (version 5.1) adds a web client portfolio to manage users' VMware infrastructure anywhere. Whether it is VMware or Microsoft, they use Windows PowerSHEll (command line shell and script system management tool) to support automated management. VMware also added a free command line tool called PowerCLI, which contains a long column of custom PowerShell cmdlet script files for managing users' vSphere infrastructure.
Memory environment:
Does hypervisor support memory over-allocation? Memory overallocation is a technology provided in vSphere that allows administrators to allocate more RAM to virtual machines than they do in hosts. There are many articles that support or object to this topic, but it is obvious that allocating more resources beyond physical requirements will increase the overall density of the virtual machine. Using memory over-allocation in a production environment is suitable for each institution. That said, in my opinion, this technology can bring important benefits when used in the right environment.
Transparent page sharing aspect:
Transparent page sharing is a way to implement memory overallocation. Using this technology, common code shared between virtual machines is itself virtualized. For example, you have 100 virtual machines running Windows XP in your VDI environment. Using transparent page sharing, RAM is not necessarily a major limiting factor in server desktop density. VMware is more prominent in this technology.
Finally, it can be seen that VMware still has an irreplaceable position in the field of virtualization. Although Microsoft Hyper-V has been continuously improving in the field of virtualization in recent years, and has even surpassed VMware in some functions, at present, VMware is better in terms of user awareness and cost-effectiveness.
The above is what the editor introduces to you, Hyper-V or VMware is better. I hope it will be helpful to you. If you have any questions, please leave me a message and the editor will reply to you in time. Thank you very much for your support for my website!