ESX Appliance?
-
@thanksaj said:
I had a coworker earlier, on a call, use the term "ESX appliance". Now, I've heard ESX server, host and cluster, but I've never heard of an ESX appliance. The term just doesn't sound right to me. When I think appliance, I think Unitrends, or even one of my company's products. But a hypervisor being used on a server, usually via a SD card or flash drive, isn't what I would consider an appliance. I think appliance, I think specific single-function system loaded directly onto a server of some sort and it does one thing. Like a Unitrends appliance runs Unitrends and that's all it does. All the hardware is there for the purpose of Unitrends.
He also mentioned how VMware is basically just Hyper-V, which when I calmly asked if he knew that they weren't the same thing, he just about flipped out...considering ESX had been around for years before Hyper-V hit the market (I looked it up just to confirm in my own head), I can pretty much say no. Besides, VMware is far more robust and powerful, as well as expensive than Hyper-V, and works very differently.
Someone tell me I'm not crazy...
Nope, you aren't crazy... when I hear appliance I think of a single use specialized hardware (or virtual) device from a specific vendor. Edited for clarity.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
I had a coworker earlier, on a call, use the term "ESX appliance". Now, I've heard ESX server, host and cluster, but I've never heard of an ESX appliance. The term just doesn't sound right to me. When I think appliance, I think Unitrends, or even one of my company's products. But a hypervisor being used on a server, usually via a SD card or flash drive, isn't what I would consider an appliance. I think appliance, I think specific single-function system loaded directly onto a server of some sort and it does one thing. Like a Unitrends appliance runs Unitrends and that's all it does. All the hardware is there for the purpose of Unitrends.
He also mentioned how VMware is basically just Hyper-V, which when I calmly asked if he knew that they weren't the same thing, he just about flipped out...considering ESX had been around for years before Hyper-V hit the market (I looked it up just to confirm in my own head), I can pretty much say no. Besides, VMware is far more robust and powerful, as well as expensive than Hyper-V, and works very differently.
Someone tell me I'm not crazy...
Nope, you aren't when I hear appliance I think of a single use specialized hardware (or virtual) device from a specific vendor.
Thank you. I told my coworker that saying ESX appliance makes him sound ignorant to a normal IT guy because you just don't use those two terms together.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
I had a coworker earlier, on a call, use the term "ESX appliance". Now, I've heard ESX server, host and cluster, but I've never heard of an ESX appliance. The term just doesn't sound right to me. When I think appliance, I think Unitrends, or even one of my company's products. But a hypervisor being used on a server, usually via a SD card or flash drive, isn't what I would consider an appliance. I think appliance, I think specific single-function system loaded directly onto a server of some sort and it does one thing. Like a Unitrends appliance runs Unitrends and that's all it does. All the hardware is there for the purpose of Unitrends.
He also mentioned how VMware is basically just Hyper-V, which when I calmly asked if he knew that they weren't the same thing, he just about flipped out...considering ESX had been around for years before Hyper-V hit the market (I looked it up just to confirm in my own head), I can pretty much say no. Besides, VMware is far more robust and powerful, as well as expensive than Hyper-V, and works very differently.
Someone tell me I'm not crazy...
Nope, you aren't when I hear appliance I think of a single use specialized hardware (or virtual) device from a specific vendor.
This is exactly what I think as well.
-
Although anecdotally I've worked with ESXi in the past. and currently have our infrastructure running on Hyper-V, the differences in my opinion to the average IT guy are minimal. Each is a hypervisor that allows you to spin up VMs on top of it. Each has functionality at a basic level and requires an additional license to get the more advanced features (although I have had a lot of luck with the non-SCVVM version of Hyper-V manager so far) I could get a lot of flack for this but in both of the deployments I haven't discovered a single thing that ESXi did that I wish Hyper-V would do... although I do wish that the non-SCVVM Hyper-V manager had better reporting like vCenter does.
-
@coliver said:
Although anecdotally I've worked with ESXi in the past. and currently have our infrastructure running on Hyper-V, the differences in my opinion to the average IT guy are minimal. Each is a hypervisor that allows you to spin up VMs on top of it. Each has functionality at a basic level and requires an additional license to get the more advanced features (although I have had a lot of luck with the non-SCVVM version of Hyper-V manager so far) I could get a lot of flack for this but in both of the deployments I haven't discovered a single thing that ESXi did that I wish Hyper-V would do... although I do wish that the non-SCVVM Hyper-V manager had better reporting like vCenter does.
It's features like vMotion that ESXi has that I know of no equivalent in Hyper-V. I'm by no means an expert in all the possible functions and features of ESXi, but I've seen Hyper-V a little and did not care for the interface, personally. Not compared to ESXi.
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
Although anecdotally I've worked with ESXi in the past. and currently have our infrastructure running on Hyper-V, the differences in my opinion to the average IT guy are minimal. Each is a hypervisor that allows you to spin up VMs on top of it. Each has functionality at a basic level and requires an additional license to get the more advanced features (although I have had a lot of luck with the non-SCVVM version of Hyper-V manager so far) I could get a lot of flack for this but in both of the deployments I haven't discovered a single thing that ESXi did that I wish Hyper-V would do... although I do wish that the non-SCVVM Hyper-V manager had better reporting like vCenter does.
It's features like vMotion that ESXi has that I know of no equivalent in Hyper-V. I'm by no means an expert in all the possible functions and features of ESXi, but I've seen Hyper-V a little and did not care for the interface, personally. Not compared to ESXi.
Agreed the interface could use a little work but by no means is it un-usable. Storage Live Migration is a comparable feature but I can't remember if you need SCVMM (cause I can't type apparently) or not.
Sorry don't mean to make this a comparative thread.
I can understand why some people think a virtual machine host is an appliance. It does a single specific task, host virtual machines. That doesn't make them right... just that I understand it.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
Although anecdotally I've worked with ESXi in the past. and currently have our infrastructure running on Hyper-V, the differences in my opinion to the average IT guy are minimal. Each is a hypervisor that allows you to spin up VMs on top of it. Each has functionality at a basic level and requires an additional license to get the more advanced features (although I have had a lot of luck with the non-SCVVM version of Hyper-V manager so far) I could get a lot of flack for this but in both of the deployments I haven't discovered a single thing that ESXi did that I wish Hyper-V would do... although I do wish that the non-SCVVM Hyper-V manager had better reporting like vCenter does.
It's features like vMotion that ESXi has that I know of no equivalent in Hyper-V. I'm by no means an expert in all the possible functions and features of ESXi, but I've seen Hyper-V a little and did not care for the interface, personally. Not compared to ESXi.
Agreed the interface could use a little work but by no means is it un-usable. Storage Live Migration is a comparable feature but I can't remember if you need SCVMM (cause I can't type apparently) or not.
Sorry don't mean to make this a comparative thread.
I can understand why some people think a virtual machine host is an appliance. It does a single specific task, host virtual machines. That doesn't make them right... just that I understand it.
Ok, I'd never heard of that feature in Hyper-V. I never said un-useable. I remember being shown Hyper-V 2008 I think it was once, and it just seemed klunky.
-
@thanksaj Oh... yep even with Windows 8.1/Server 2012 R2 the basic interface is extremely clunky. No where near as polished as vCenter.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj Oh... yep even with Windows 8.1/Server 2012 R2 the basic interface is extremely clunky. No where near as polished as vCenter.
The guy was deploying a UEB Hyper-V template. The way it was done on Hyper-V 2008 was just so weird!
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj Oh... yep even with Windows 8.1/Server 2012 R2 the basic interface is extremely clunky. No where near as polished as vCenter.
The guy was deploying a UEB Hyper-V template. The way it was done on Hyper-V 2008 was just so weird!
Can confirm deploying virtual appliances in Hyper-V is weird... in that the process isn't what one would expect.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj Oh... yep even with Windows 8.1/Server 2012 R2 the basic interface is extremely clunky. No where near as polished as vCenter.
The guy was deploying a UEB Hyper-V template. The way it was done on Hyper-V 2008 was just so weird!
Can confirm deploying virtual appliances in Hyper-V is weird... in that the process isn't what one would expect.
I forget the exact process, but it was like running an exe to extract the template to a location and then adding it was separate or something similar. I don't remember the exact steps but I remember the guy telling me how he had both Hyper-V and ESXi in his environment and he loved ESXi and couldn't stand the Hyper-V he was forced to deal with.
-
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
-
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
-
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
Isn't Xen free?
-
@thanksaj At my second job, they moved from VMWare to Hyper-V 3.0 ... They are completely hyper-v now... but they also have Cisco servers ... so they might be a little odd.
-
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj At my second job, they moved from VMWare to Hyper-V 3.0 ... They are completely hyper-v now... but they also have Cisco servers ... so they might be a little odd.
Cisco...servers? Odd doesn't even begin to describe it...
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
Isn't Xen free?
Open-source and free yes... also my preferred platform (I run it for my personal lab).
-
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj At my second job, they moved from VMWare to Hyper-V 3.0 ... They are completely hyper-v now... but they also have Cisco servers ... so they might be a little odd.
Cisco...servers? Odd doesn't even begin to describe it...
I played with the Cisco UCS servers at a previous job. I didn't find anything wrong or different about them... just seemed like regular server with the maximum RAM bumped up... I think they purchased the company who originally was making these servers I don't remember what it was originally called though.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@milnesy said:
Hyper-V 3.0 is so much more polished than the previous versions of Hyper-V. I also think it's a lot easier to manage than VMWare. (Mind you I have 2 clusters of VMWare running with over 100 servers on each.) It's what I'm recommending to smaller customers, especially because of the price. And the new features in 3.0 put it extremely close to being on par with VMWare ... well, that was until VMWare when on a huge acquisition party and gobbled up some very nice companies.
Oh I'm not denying that Hyper-V is much more cost effective. I just don't hear about major enterprise networks running Hyper-V as their hypervisor. It's ESXi or Xen.
Hyper-V is still relatively new and it may be awhile before some really big shops start to deploy it, although the price comparison when you get big enough is pretty even (some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level).
Isn't Xen free?
Open-source and free yes... also my preferred platform (I run it for my personal lab).
Ok, then what did you mean by the fact that "some have VMware as the cheaper alternative at the enterprise level"? Wouldn't it be more expensive that way?
