compete to win | part i: comparing core virtualization platforms matt mcspirit | mcse | mcitp | vcp...

42
Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation @mattmcspirit VIR311

Upload: randolph-blair

Post on 24-Dec-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms

Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCPSenior Product Marketing ManagerMicrosoft Corporation@mattmcspirit

VIR311

Page 2: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Compete to Win | The Series

Compete to Win

I - Core Virtualization II - Private Cloud

Thursday June 14th

8:30amHypervisor Choices

Hypervisor Comparison

Page 3: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Choices, Choices, Choices….

XenServervSphere |vSphere

Hypervisor

Windows Server Hyper-V

Hyper-V Server What is Hyper-V Server?

Page 4: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

What is Hyper-V Server?

Free Standalone DownloadContains

HypervisorWindows Server Driver ModelKey Virtualization Components

Small FootprintMinimal OverheadIntegrates into current infrastructureFeature rich

Page 5: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V Server | Use Cases

Virtual Desktop Infrastructure

• Windows Client VDI licensing is per end-point device

• VDI technologies are typically multi-hypervisor aware

• Windows 7 and Windows 8 run best on Hyper-V

Alternative Operating Systems

• Microsoft currently supports the following Linux distributions on Hyper-V:• SLES: (10 SP4 – 11

SP1/2)• RHEL: 5.5-5.7 | 6.0-6.2• CentOS: 5.5-5.7 | 6.0-6.2

• Enhancing Linux integration and support rapidly

Windows Server Licensing

• Reassign, where applicable, existing VL onto Hyper-V Servers

• However, you would lose benefits of other Windows Server 2012 capabilities

Page 6: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

demo

Hyper-V Server |Quick Look

Page 7: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison | 4 Key Areas

Scalability, Performance & Density

Security & Multitenancy

Flexible Infrastructure

High Availability & Resiliency

Page 8: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison

Scalability,Performance &Density

Page 9: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison | Hyper-V from 2008 R2 to 2012

System Resource Hyper-V(2008 R2)

Host

Logical Processors (Cores) 64

Physical Memory 1TB

Virtual CPUs per Host 512

VM

Virtual CPUs per VM 4

Memory per VM 64GB

Active VMs per Host 384

Guest NUMA No

ClusterMaximum Nodes 16

Maximum VMs 1,000

Table shows comparison for both Windows Server Hyper-V, along with Hyper-V Server.

Hyper-V(2012)

Improvement Factor

320 5×

4TB 4×

2,048 4×

64 16×

1TB 16×

1,024 2.7×

Yes -

64 4×

4,000 4×

Page 10: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonSystem Resource Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Host

Logical Processors (Cores) 320 160 160 160

Physical Memory 4TB 1TB 32GB3 2TB

Virtual CPUs per Host 2,048Undocumented

6 2,048 2,048

VM

Virtual CPUs per VM 64 16 8 325

Memory per VM 1TB 128GB 32GB3 1TB

Active VMs per Host 1,024 50-1301 512 512

Guest NUMA Yes Host Only Yes Yes

ClusterMaximum Nodes 64 16 N/A4 32

Maximum VMs 4,000 800-9602 N/A4 3,0001. XenServer 6.0 active VMs per host varies based on Server/VDI workload, with PVS/IntelliCache & HA on/off2. Maximum VMs on a Cluster (Resource Pool) on XenServer 6.0 based on a maximum of 50-60 concurrent protected VMs per host with HA enabled.3. Host physical memory is capped at 32GB thus maximum VM memory is also restricted to 32GB usage.4. For clustering/high availability, customers must purchase vSphere5. vSphere 5.0 Enterprise Plus is the only edition that supports 32 vCPUs. All others support 8 vCPUs within a virtual machine.6. Maximum number of Virtual CPUs per Host is not documented in the Citrix XenServer 6.0 Configuration Limits documentation

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/Citrix_XenServer_6_Configuration_Limits.pdfvSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration-maximums.pdf and http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/faq.html

Page 11: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Enhanced Storage Capabilities

Sto

rage

Native 4K Disk SupportTake advantage of enhanced density and reliability

Offloaded Data TransferOffloads storage-intensive tasks to the SAN

Virtual Fiber ChannelConnect a VM directly to FC SAN without sacrificing features

64TB Virtual Hard Disks (VHDX)Increased capacity, protection & alignment optimization

Page 12: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

demo

Ginormous VHDX Files

Page 13: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Virtual Fiber Channel Yes No Yes Yes

3rd Party Multipathing (MPIO) Yes Yes (Manual) No Yes (VAMP)2

Native 4-KB Disk Support Yes Undocumented4

Undocumented4 Undocumented4

Maximum Virtual Disk Size 64TB VHDX 2TB 2TB VMDK 2TB VMDK

Maximum Pass Through Disk Size Varies1 15TB 64TB 64TB

Offloaded Data Transfer Yes No No Yes (VAAI)31. The maximum size of a physical disk attached to a virtual machine is determined by the guest operating system and the chosen file system within the guest2. vStorage API for Multipathing (VAMP) is only available in Enterprise & Enterprise Plus editions of vSphere 5.03. vStorage API for Array Integration (VAAI) is only available in Enterprise & Enterprise Plus editions of vSphere 5.04. Neither VMware or Citrix documentation suggests that their respective platforms support 4K Advanced Format Drives

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/Citrix_XenServer_6_Configuration_Limits.pdf and http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/28751-102-673823/XenServer-6.0.0-reference.pdf vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration-maximums.pdf and http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html

Page 14: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Enhanced Resource Management

Reso

urc

e

Mgm

t.Resource MeteringTrack historical data for virtual machine usage

Dynamic Memory ImprovementsSupport for greater virtual machine consolidation

Data Center Bridging (DCB)Converge network traffic to provide enhanced QoS

Quality of Service (QoS)Consistent level of performance based on SLAs

Page 15: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Dynamic Memory Yes Yes1 Yes Yes

Resource Metering Yes Yes2 Yes4 Yes

Quality of Service Yes Yes No Yes5

Data Center Bridging (DCB) Yes Undocumente

d3 Yes Yes

1. Memory Optimization is a feature found only in XenServer 6.0 Advanced edition and higher.2. XenServer collects processor use, memory usage, and network I/O rates for the entire host system, as well as each individual virtual machine. Free

edition limited to 24 hours of historical data.3. A number of Converged Network Adaptors are supported within the XenServer 6.0 HCL however no official documentation can be found for DCB and

XenServer 6.0.4. Without vCenter, Resource Metering in VMware vSphere Hypervisor is only available on an individual host by host basis.5. Quality of Service (QoS) is only available in the Enterprise Plus edition of vSphere 5.0

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/Citrix_XenServer_6_Configuration_Limits.pdf, http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/28751-102-673823/XenServer-6.0.0-reference.pdf, http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX123996 and http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/subfeature.asp?contentID=2300456 vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration-maximums.pdf and http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html

Page 16: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison

Security& Multitenancy

Page 17: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Extensible Switch

Ext

ensi

ble

Sw

itch

Extensible by PartnersOpen platform that lets multiple Partners provide extensions that arewritten to standard Windows API frameworks. These Partners include:- Cisco: Nexus 1000V & UCS Virtual Machine Fabric Extender (VM-FEX)- NEC: OpenFlow- 5nine: Virtual Firewall 3.0- InMon: sFlow

New Security & Isolation Capabilities- PVLANs- ARP/ND Spoofing Protection | DHCP Guard Protection- Virtual Port ACLs | Trunk Mode to VMs- Monitoring & Port Mirroring- Windows PowerShell | WMI Management- Performance Enhancements: DVMDq | IPsec Task Offload | SR-IOV

Page 18: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Physical Security

Phys

ical

Secu

rityBitLocker Drive EncryptionProvides a solution for securing data within deploymentsoutside of the datacenter. BitLocker in Windows Server 2012enables the IT administrator to:- Encrypt local disk storage (DAS)- Encrypt traditional failover cluster disks- Encrypt Cluster Shared Volumes 2.0BitLocker offers a solution to meeting compliance demands.

Page 19: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Extensible Switch Yes Yes No Replaceable1

Confirmed Partner Extensions 4 Undocumente

d4 No 2

Private Virtual LAN (PVLAN) Yes No No Yes1

ARP/ND Spoofing Protection Yes No No vShield App/Partner2

DHCP Snooping Protection Yes No No vShield App/Partner2

Virtual Port ACLs Yes Yes No vShield App/Partner2

Trunk Mode to Virtual Machines Yes No No No

Port Monitoring Yes Yes Per Port Group Yes3

Port Mirroring Yes Yes Per Port Group Yes3

1. The vSphere Distributed Switch (required for PVLAN capability) is available only in the Enterprise Plus edition of vSphere 5.0 and thus far, seems to be replaceable (By Partners such as Cisco/IBM) rather than extensible.

2. ARP Spoofing, DHCP Snooping Protection & Virtual Port ACLs require either vShield App or a Partner solution, all of which are additional purchases on top of vSphere 5.0 Enterprise Plus

3. Port Monitoring and Mirroring at a granular level requires vSphere Distributed Switch, which is available in the Enterprise Plus edition of vSphere 5.0.4. No XenServer documentation can be located that discusses Partner Extension s to the XenServer Open vSwitch.

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/28748-102-664877/XenServer-6.0.0-dvs_controller.pdf, http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/28751-102-673823/XenServer-6.0.0-reference.pdf and http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/subfeature.asp?contentID=2300456 vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/products/cisco-nexus-1000V/overview.html, http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/networking/switches/virtual/dvs5000v/, http://www.vmware.com/technical-resources/virtualization-topics/virtual-networking/distributed-virtual-switches.html, http://www.vmware.com/products/vshield-app/features.html and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/data_sheet_c78-492971.html

Page 20: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Dynamic Virtual Machine Queue Yes VMq1 NetQueue1 NetQueue1

IPsec Task Offload Yes No No No

SR-IOV Yes Yes2 DirectPath I/O3 DirectPath I/O3

Storage Encryption Yes No No No1. Dynamic Virtual Machine Queue (DVMQ) is not supported by either XenServer or vSphere, which both support regular VMq (known as NetQueue on vSphere).2. Whilst XenServer 6.0 provides SR-IOV support, the release notes state: “If your VM has an SR-IOV VF, functions that require VM mobility are not possible. For

example, Live Migration, Workload Balancing, Rolling Pool Upgrade, High Availability and Disaster Recovery, cannot be used. This is because the VM is directly tied to the physical SR-IOV enabled NIC VF. In addition, VM network traffic sent via an SR-IOV VF bypasses the vSwitch, so it is not possible to create Access Control Lists (ACL) or view Quality of Service (Qos).” (http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX131381)

3. DirectPath IO, whilst not identical to SR-IOV, aims to provide virtual machines with more direct access to hardware devices, with network cards being a good example. Whilst on the surface, this will boost VM networking performance, and reduce the burden on host CPU cycles, in reality, there are a number of caveats in using DirectPath I/O:• Very small Hardware Compatibility List• No Memory Overcommit• No vMotion (unless running certain configurations of Cisco UCS)• No Fault Tolerance• No Network I/O Control• No VM Snapshots (unless running certain configurations of Cisco UCS)• No Suspend/Resume (unless running certain configurations of Cisco UCS)• No VMsafe/Endpoint Security support• No such restrictions are imposed when using SR-IOV, ensuring customers can combine the highest levels of performance with the flexibility they need for an

agile infrastructure.

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/Citrix_XenServer_6_Configuration_Limits.pdf, http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/subfeature.asp?contentID=2300456, vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/Perf_Best_Practices_vSphere5.0.pdf

Page 21: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison

FlexibleInfrastructure

Page 22: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Virtual Machine Migration

Mig

rati

on

Live Storage MigrationMove the virtual hard disks of running virtual machines toa different storage location with no downtime

Shared Nothing Live MigrationMove Virtual Machines between Hyper-V hosts withnothing but a network cable

Live MigrationFaster, unrestricted, simultaneous VM live migrationsbetween cluster nodes with no downtime

Page 23: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Network Virtualization

Netw

ork

Fl

exi

bili

tySecure IsolationIsolate network traffic from different business units orcustomers on a shared infrastructure without VLANs

Flexible MigrationsMove VMs as needed within your virtual infrastructurewhile preserving their virtual network assignments

Seamless IntegrationTransparently integrate these private networks into apreexisting infrastructure on another site

Page 24: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Network Virtualization

Blue Corp

Customer Address

Provider Address

10.1.1.1 192.168.1.10

10.1.1.2 192.168.1.12

Red Corp

Customer Address

Provider Address

10.1.1.1 192.168.1.11

10.1.1.2 192.168.1.13

Policy Settings

SQL 10.1.1.1

WEB 10.1.1.2

SQL 10.1.1.1

WEB 10.1.1.2

Blue Corp

Red Corp

Data Center Network

Provider Address Space

Hyper-V Host 1 Hyper-V Host 1

192.168.1.10 192.168.1.11 192.168.1.10 192.168.1.11

SQL SQL WEB WEB

10.1.1.1 10.1.1.1 10.1.1.2 10.1.1.2

Customer Address Space

Page 25: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

VM Live Migration Yes Yes No2 Yes4

1GB Simultaneous Live Migrations Unlimited1 Undocumented7 N/A 4

10GB Simultaneous Live Migrations Unlimited1 Undocumented7 N/A 8

Live Storage Migration Yes No No3 Yes5

Shared Nothing Live Migration Yes No No No

Network Virtualization Yes No No Partner61. Within the technical capabilities of the networking hardware2. Live Migration (vMotion) is unavailable in the free vSphere Hypervisor – vSphere 5.0 required3. Live Storage Migration (Storage vMotion) is unavailable in the free vSphere Hypervisor4. Live Migration (vMotion) is available in Essentials Plus & higher editions of vSphere 5.05. Live Storage Migration (Storage vMotion) is available in Enterprise & Enterprise Plus editions of vSphere 5.06. VXLAN is a feature of the Cisco Nexus 1000V 1.5, available at additional cost to VMware vSphere 5.0 Enterprise Plus7. No XenServer documentation can be found that details the number of simultaneous live migrations over either 1GB or 10GB Ethernet.

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/subfeature.asp?contentID=2300456 vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.html

Page 26: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Comparison

High Availability& Resiliency

Page 27: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Resiliency

Resi

liency Inbox Replication

Hyper-V Replica enables the replication of VMs fromPrimary to Secondary site for inbuilt Disaster Recovery

Incremental BackupsPerform agentless backup operations more quickly &easily whilst saving network bandwidth & disk space

Integrated NIC TeamingAggregate network adaptors to increase throughput &provide redundancy in case of link failure

Page 28: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Failover Clustering

Clu

steri

ng

Unmatched ScaleFailover Clusters support 64 Nodes and 4000 VMs

Flexible VM ClusteringiSCSI, Virtual Fiber Channel & SMB 3.0 clustering support

Highly Secured Clustered StorageBitLocker Drive Encryption for improved security

Enhanced Cluster Shared VolumesDeeper integration with storage arrays

Page 29: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | Failover Clustering

Clu

steri

ng

3 Levels of AvailabilityHost, Guest OS & Application Level Protection

Cluster Aware UpdatingEliminate downtime associated with cluster updating

Failover PrioritizationControls the order in which VMs fail over or start

Affinity & Anti-Affinity RulesEnsure VMs stay together, or apart within the cluster

Page 30: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere Comparison

Capability Hyper-V(2012)

XenServer(6.0)

vSphereHypervisor

vSphere(5.0 Ent+)

Incremental Backups Yes Yes1 No Yes5

Inbox VM Replication Yes No2 No No6

NIC Teaming Yes Yes Yes Yes

Integrated High Availability Yes Yes3 No4 Yes7

Guest OS Application Monitoring Yes No N/A No8

Failover Prioritization Yes Yes N/A Yes9

Affinity & Anti-Affinity Rules Yes No N/A Yes9

Cluster-Aware Updating Yes Yes N/A Yes9

1. XenServer 6 provides Automated VM Protection & Recovery in the Advanced edition and higher2. XenServer 6 provides a Site Replication capability in the Platinum edition, however replication is provided by a storage vendor, not inbox from XenServer

hosts.3. XenServer 6 provides HA in the Advanced edition or higher.4. The vSphere Hypervisor has no high availability features built in – vSphere 5.0 is required.5. VMware Data Recovery is available in Essentials Plus and higher vSphere 5.0 editions6. vSphere Replication is a feature of VMware vCenter Site Recovery Manager (SRM), which is available in 2 editions and is a chargeable addition to vSphere 5.07. VMware HA is built in to Essentials Plus and higher vSphere 5.0 editions8. VMware have made APIs publicly available, but actual application monitoring is not included9. Features available in all editions that have High Availability enabled.

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/subfeature.asp?contentID=2300456 vSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html, http://www.vmware.com/products/site-recovery-manager/overview.html and http://www.yellow-bricks.com/2011/08/11/vsphere-5-0-ha-application-monitoring-intro/

Page 31: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Hyper-V | XenServer | vSphere ComparisonCapability Hyper-V

(2012)XenServer

(6.0)vSphere

HypervisorvSphere

(5.0 Ent+)

Nodes per Cluster 64 16 N/A2 32

VMs per Cluster 4,000 800-9601 N/A2 3000

Max Size Guest Cluster (iSCSI) 64 Nodes Undocumented7 03 03

Max Size Guest Cluster (Fiber) 64 Nodes No 2 2

Max Size Guest Cluster (File Based) 64 Nodes Undocumented7 04 04

Guest Clustering with Live Migration Support Yes Undocumented7 N/A2 No5

Guest Clustering with Dynamic Memory Support Yes Undocumented7 No6 No6

1. Maximum VMs on a Cluster (Resource Pool) on XenServer 6.0 based on a maximum of 50-60 concurrent protected VMs per host with HA enabled.2. High Availability/vMotion/Clustering is unavailable in the standalone vSphere Hypervisor3. VMware does not support VM Guest Clustering using iSCSI storage.4. VMware does not support VM Guest Clustering using File Based Storage i.e. NFS5. VMware does not support the vMotion of a VM that is part of a Guest Cluster6. VMware does not support the use of Memory Overcommit with a VM that is part of a Guest Cluster7. No XenServer documentation can be found that details the number of simultaneous live migrations over either 1GB or 10GB Ethernet.

XenServer 6.0 Information: http://www.citrix.com/site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/Citrix_XenServer_6_Configuration_Limits.pdfvSphere Hypervisor / vSphere 5.0 Ent+ Information: http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration-maximums.pdf, http://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-50/topic/com.vmware.ICbase/PDF/vsphere-esxi-vcenter-server-50-mscs-guide.pdf

Page 32: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

All this is great, but what about….

Both VMware vSphere (ENT) and Citrix XenServer 6.0 (ENT) have features for load balancing VMs, and offer power management of hypervisor hosts. Is there anything similar in Hyper-V?

Hyper-V, in the box, has the engine to move virtual machines around without interruption, and when combined with System Center 2012 unlocks capabilities such as Dynamic Optimization and Power Optimization

Page 33: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

All this is great, but what about….

Within vSphere 5.0 Enterprise Plus, VMware offer the ability to centrally deploy the hypervisor down to physical hardware. What are my choiceswith Hyper-V?

With Hyper-V being contained within a WIM file, IT admins have a variety of choices – DVD, USB, WDS, MDT 2012, or, within System Center 2012, Configuration Manager or Virtual Machine Manager.

Page 34: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

All this is great, but what about….

VMware has a feature known as Fault Tolerance, which runs a hot-standby of a VM on another host, to take over should the primary host fail – beat that Microsoft!

Whilst attractive on paper, this is a feature where the cons, outweigh the pros. Using FT means sacrificing:• Scale & Density (4 FT VMs per Host & no Memory Overcommit)• Performance (1 vCPU per FT VM & EPT/RVI disabled)• Hot-Plug disabled, no snapshots, backups etc.

Hyper-V has comprehensive guest clustering, 3 levels of availability, and for the highest levels of availability, we partner with Stratus (ftServer).

Page 35: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Summary

ClosingThoughts

Page 36: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Summary

Scalability, Performance & Density

Security & Multitenancy

Flexible Infrastructure

High Availability & Resiliency

Hyper-V: A More Complete Virtualization Platform

Page 37: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Related Content

Breakout Sessions:VIR312 - Compete to Win, Part 2: Comparing Private Cloud Capabilities (0830 6/13)VIR302 - Enabling DR for Hyper-V Workloads Using Hyper-V Replica (1515 6/13)VIR303 - An Overview of Hyper-V Networking in Windows Server 2012 (1015 6/13) VIR308 - What's New in Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V, Part 1 (Online) VIR309 - What's New in Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V, Part 2 (Online)Hands-on Labs: VIR21-HOL, VIR13-HOL, VIR12-HOL

Demos: VIR02-TLC (Hyper-V), WSV03-TLC (Failover Clustering)

Find Me At…the Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V Stand (1230-1530 6/13)

Page 38: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

SIA, WSV, and VIR Track Resources

DOWNLOAD Windows Server 2012 Release Candidate

microsoft.com/windowsserver

#TEVIR311 DOWNLOAD Microsoft System Center 2012 Evaluation

microsoft.com/systemcenterHands-On Labs

Talk to our Experts at the TLC

Page 39: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Resources

Connect. Share. Discuss.

http://europe.msteched.com

Learning

Microsoft Certification & Training Resources

www.microsoft.com/learning

TechNet

Resources for IT Professionals

http://microsoft.com/technet

Resources for Developers

http://microsoft.com/msdn

Page 40: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

Evaluations

http://europe.msteched.com/sessions

Submit your evals online

Page 41: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation

© 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to

be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS

PRESENTATION.

Page 42: Compete to Win | Part I: Comparing Core Virtualization Platforms Matt McSpirit | MCSE | MCITP | VCP Senior Product Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation