Detailed Comparison Virtualization Server [Citrix Xenserver vs MS Hyper-V vs Red Hat Virt. vs Vmware vShpere]
Virtualization is now viewed as viable for companies of all sizes. VMware leads the market by a longshot but there are a number of vendors to choose from.
But the gap is closing fast. All are viable in a production environment. The largest of companies still see virtualization as the best option but small and mid-sized companies have options to choose from as seen in this feature chart below
We have compared the leading virtualization vendors in the matrix below
Overall, VMware leads the group of vendors, which included Citrix Xen Server; Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V R2; Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 2.2 and VMware VSphere.
But the gap is closing fast. All are viable in a production environment. The largest of companies still see virtualization as the best option but small and mid-sized companies have options to choose from as seen in this feature chart belowVirtualization Server Comparison | ||||
Features | Citrix Xenserver 5.6.1 | Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V R2 | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 2.2 | Vmware vSphere 4.1 |
Bare-metal hypervisor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
vCPUs per host | 512 | 512 | 512 | 512 |
vCPUs per VM | 8 Win /32 Linux | 4 | 8 | 16 |
RAM per host | 512 GB | 1 TB | 1 TB | 1 TB |
RAM per VM | 32 GB | 64 GB | 256 GB | 255 GB |
Memory ocercommitment | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Page sharing | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Virtual NICs | 7 / guest | 8 synthetic, 4 emulated | 8 / guest | 10 / guest |
VLAN Supports | Yes | Yes (but with separate guest config) | Yes | Yes |
Guest OS Support | CentOS, Debian, Redhat, Suse, Windows | Red Hat, Suse, Windows | Red Hat, Windows | Most x86 OS |
Live Migrations | Yes | Yes ( requires windows clustering) | Yes | Yes |
Live Storage Migrations | No | No (but can automate with VM suspend) | No | Yes |
Load Balancing | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
High availability | Yes | Yes | Yes (but not for complete host failure) | Yes |
Maintenance mode for hosts | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Templating and cloning | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Thin provisioned VM disks | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
VM import / export | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Snapshots | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Remote console | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PXE boot for VMs | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Shared storage | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Storage multipathing | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Shared resource pools | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
API | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Microsoft is VMware's closest competitor as it can be seen in the comparison.
Among the three challengers, Microsoft Hyper-V comes closest to VMware vSphere in overall management functionality. However, whereas VMware, Red Hat, and Citrix combine virtualization host and VM management in a single management server, Microsoft spreads the functions across multiple System Center tools. Hyper-V's advanced capabilities come at the cost of additional overhead, configuration, and complexity for administrators.
That last sentence sums up the challenges to those considering virtualization. It's no longer the cost that should keep customers from adopting virtualization. Instead, it's the expertise required that should become one of the biggest considerations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Soon, the os vendor will own its virtualization and beat the propietary only vm services, because its being more cheaper and support in the future...
Agree with ardianto but i think companies will not look into money the one who provides better features, support and stability will be the leader.