VMware "Miles Ahead" of Microsoft Virtual Server 209
sunshineluv7 writes, "IT managers gathered in New York City earlier this week to get advice from experts on when, why, and how to virtualize their server environments. The takeaway from the conference: if you want to run an enterprise-class virtualization platform in production today, stick with VMware." Other wise words from this conference: "Virtualization is a journey, not a project."
Re:virtual bsod? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In all objectivity... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no doubt MS will improve the product and add functionality as time goes on but they are currently WAY behind and not making great strides at this time.
You can wait but you will be waiting a looong time, at least years. Keep in mind, VMWare products are improving as well.
Re:In all objectivity... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are referring to compatibility amongst MS products I suspect the answer would be yes, it will probably work great for running MS products on top of MS products. However, keeping in mind MS' contempt for their customers coupled with the fact that MS has a very very difficult time "playing fair" with any competitors, I would assume that anything other than a MS product that you try to run will fail. It will not fail miserably or refuse to install, it will just be "buggy" and MS will point the finger squarely at whatever "unsupported" OS it is that you are using. Now as far as compatibilty goes, could you elaborate what you mean there? MS is famous for not being compatible with anything (including older MS software itself). You will also want to keep in mind that VMWare has been doing this for a long time. This is Internet2 for MS -- they missed the boat big-time and are now trying to catch up.
Re:VMWare is no good (Score:3, Insightful)
Real Virtual (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anecdotal evidence of VMWare being better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:virtual bsod? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see what Longhorn virtualization has to offe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:VMWare is no good (Score:3, Insightful)
You can also buy a decent server and actually UTILIZE it. It is better if you buy 2 or 3. That way you can run whatever OS you need (relatively) on that hardware and not have 8 or 9 servers running at 15% because the vendor of the application you are serving will not certify it running with any other piece of software on it.
You can also migrate in case of a failure, or just lift the server off the hardware without worry. Your company has HP Proliant 185s and the leases are up. They are buying 385s to replace them. You simply move the images to the new machine and start them. The process saves tons of time, uses less electricity than several boxes, and you can also do disaster recovery by backing up the images and storing them at an off site location. If a disaster takes out your data center, you fire up the copies at the co-location and are back in business.
But other than that and a few more things.......its just cool to have without any real benefit....
Re:VMware (Score:3, Insightful)
Well look on the bright side: You only tried three times, but you failed six times! That's a 100% net gain in results over effort. If we can find a way to harness your failure, we might be able to use you to power our cities.