XenServer vs ESXi

scottalanmiller

 Essentials is a bare metal hypervisor that simply allows us to use our chosen hardware

ESXi, like Xen, is a bare metal hypervisor. Essentials is a license, not a "thing."

scottalanmiller

o Unlimited free forums support

VMware has great community support too. Open source is often great for this and is very good in Xen's case, but VMware's community is huge and just as good.

JaredBusch

@DustinB3403 said:

ESXi vSphere Essentials Facts
• Publicly and extremely common Hypervisor

@scottalanmiller said:

They both are. That's not an advantage to either. Xen is what is used by Amazon, IBM, Rackspace, etc. The "big boys" for the most critical environments in the world. So from that perspective I'd call this a draw at best, in Xen's favour possibly.

Just because a platform is used by Amazon, IBM, and Rackspace does not make it extremely common to IT.

No one "uses" Xen from those providers as they would "use" Xen installed locally.

XenServer is not an extremely common Hypervisor for the intents and purposes of an SMB (and many smaller enterprises).

DustinB3403

Easy support as in (Our current MSP already uses this, therefore we don't have to look for support should we need it)

The enterprises item is specifically a negative as much larger companies (from all information I could find) with the aforementioned ones you put up are paying for ESXi functionality and licensing.

ESXi Essentials licensing allows you to use more than the maximum hardware of 1 CPU. Otherwise it's practically worthless without licensing but to run a few VM that can fit on a single CPU.

JaredBusch

@DustinB3403 said:

o Easily supported between different MSP’s as it’s “common”

@scottalanmiller said:

Any reason to believe that XenServer is not easy to get support for or is that just based on people who use ESXi claiming such? I've yet to hear of anyone who struggled to get support for XenServer.

XenServer is not "easily supported between different MSP's" because it is NOT common as I previously documented. This mean it is harder to find an MSP to support it than it is to find an MSP to support VMWare. This does not mean ti is actually too hard to find a MSP to support it, but contrasting the two options this is most certainly a true statement.

coliver

@DustinB3403 said:

ESXi vSphere Essentials Facts
o Licensing is priced for Enterprises not SMB’s

Both Xen and ESXi are designed with the enterprise in mind. I don't think this should really be included... it is basically saying that because Xen was designed for the SMB (which it wasn't) it is somehow a lesser product...

o Essentials allows use of appropriate hardware only

You should use supported hardware regardless I believe that XenServer has a HCL although it may be a bit out of date.

o Without a Plus plan or higher VMWare offers no support*
 Essentials is a bare metal hypervisor that simply allows us to use our chosen hardware

Xen is a bare metal hypervisor as well. XenServer is the distribution that is built on top of Xen. It is similar to VSphere for ESXi except already built into the operating system

o MSP’s / In-House IT must troubleshoot all issues

Same with XenServer?

scottalanmiller

@JaredBusch said:

XenServer is not "easily supported between different MSP's" because it is NOT common as I previously documented. This mean it is harder to find an MSP to support it than it is to find an MSP to support VMWare. This does not mean ti is actually too hard to find a MSP to support it, but contrasting the two options this is most certainly a true statement.

There are two ways to look at it. Is it easier to find Vmware support? Yes. Is it so easy to get XenServer support that more support doesn't matter? Yes.

So as a relative use I think it is misleading. People have been doing this with Windows and Linux for years. Yes Windows shops are everywhere, but there is enough Linux support so that that's not a benefit of going to Windows. There is a threshold of "more support than you could consume as a customer" and both Linux and XenServer have that (at least in his market, maybe not in the wilderness somewhere.)

So yes, I agree. But it is important to not present it as a value.

DustinB3403

coliver

Licensing priced for an enterprise is comparable to buying a car, you may have $200,000 to drop, but the next guy just wants 4 wheels and a steering wheel.

Why should I (we) pay more for a solution just because others are? Especially when there are other options for free.

Yes.. yes I know they are both bare-metail hypervisors.

Lastly

If we went with either paid solution (we not the MSP) would be more than likely to have to reach either support department* for help, unless its of a critical function at which point the MSP would come in to help.

scottalanmiller

@DustinB3403 said:

If we went with either paid solution (we not the MSP) would be more than likely to have to reach either support department* for help, unless its of a critical function at which point the MSP would come in to help.

If you are at the point of needing to go to a support department in either case, would the MSP be of any use?

DustinB3403

@scottalanmiller .. Only if they had a Direct Dial to T3 support. Which they might if they are a partner of ESXi. But I don't have an answer to this.

scottalanmiller

@DustinB3403 said:

@scottalanmiller .. Only if they had a Direct Dial to T3 support. Which they might if they are a partner of ESXi. But I don't have an answer to this.

Seems unlikely if they are struggling with basic HyperV installs

coliver

@DustinB3403

Ok sounds good. Agreed with your pricing info although I don't think that comes across in your list.

DustinB3403

Well I didn't say they had it, I just wouldn't say they "don't have a T3 support number"

If I did then I'd be lying.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said:

@Carnival-Boy said:

I always get advice from my staff and encourage them to tell me I'm an idiot and explain why. But at the end of the day the buck stops with me. I don't expect them to always agree with me, but I wouldn't be happy if they took that to my boss.

I'm of the opposite opinion, I prefer to not have management block upward concerns. I'm not a manager, but when I am I like companies that encourage people to take their concerns "up the stack." Not in a sneaky way but in a "we don't agree, let's take this up a layer and see what someone higher up thinks of our concerns."

Yeah I like this too. Though there does have to be a point where it does stop, and that's probably below the CEO or the Board.

scottalanmiller

I would say it depends. If you truly believe the CEO is sabotaging the company, you should go to the board. If you truly believe the board is, go to the investors. Make sure you are confident when you go to that level, though.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said:

I would say it depends. If you truly believe the CEO is sabotaging the company, you should go to the board. If you truly believe the board is, go to the investors. Make sure you are confident when you go to that level, though.

Yeah, that might not be worth the effort and you'd be better off just finding another job. Upsetting the board by going to the investors will probably just end with you not having a job. Unless the investors beat them to it by firing the board.

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

I would say it depends. If you truly believe the CEO is sabotaging the company, you should go to the board. If you truly believe the board is, go to the investors. Make sure you are confident when you go to that level, though.

Yeah, that might not be worth the effort and you'd be better off just finding another job. Upsetting the board by going to the investors will probably just end with you not having a job. Unless the investors beat them to it by firing the board.

Depends if you have any faith in them.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

I would say it depends. If you truly believe the CEO is sabotaging the company, you should go to the board. If you truly believe the board is, go to the investors. Make sure you are confident when you go to that level, though.

Yeah, that might not be worth the effort and you'd be better off just finding another job. Upsetting the board by going to the investors will probably just end with you not having a job. Unless the investors beat them to it by firing the board.

Depends if you have any faith in them.

I'm sorry, in who?

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said:

I'm sorry, in who?

The "layer" to which you are escalating. If you have faith that the CEO has the interest of the company at heart and just does not understand what is happening, then go to him. If the CEO is hurting the company for his own interests but you believe the board truly doesn't know and is just confused, go to them, etc. But if you have no reason to believe that they care, don't take the risk.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

I'm sorry, in who?

The "layer" to which you are escalating. If you have faith that the CEO has the interest of the company at heart and just does not understand what is happening, then go to him. If the CEO is hurting the company for his own interests but you believe the board truly doesn't know and is just confused, go to them, etc. But if you have no reason to believe that they care, don't take the risk.

That's what I was saying, just not as eloquent as you.