ESXi free is limited, 8 vcpu per VM and that limit can be easily reached limit.
It's easily reached if you starve a VM of IOPS or RAM and it's spinning cycles waiting on IO. In reality VERY few things need 8 vCPU. I've seen The ONLY exchange server for 5000 users not need that many resources.
Given modern Skylake hardware, and 4Ghz Intel Xeon Cores's if your hitting the 8vCPU limit I'm REALLY curious why your not willing to spend the one time ~$200 per host that is the Essentials bundle to get some more features is a rounding error in your budget (it's like less than a $1 a day per host).
Keep in mind it is not per hosts, but ~$600 per three hosts, so for much of the SMB that's either $300 or $600 per host and makes things like future upgrades potentially a problem. And $600 per host is enormous for the SMB market. Absolutely staggering. Given that 90% of the market can't even cost justify a server, let alone a server with that much additional licensing.
On a single host, how much value is that $600 getting an SMB versus getting free, unlimited use virtualization with $600 of faster hardware? When we are talking a $3,000 server, an extra $600 is anything but trivial.
The "only $200 per host" is really "holy crap, $200 per host with a minimum of three!!" That's not at all a small number, not in the SMB market. And especially not in an SMB market outside of the US.
KVM with Virtmanager.
Centos latest is my preferred KVM host.
And Fedora LXDE Spin is my preferred Virt-Manager choice, I use it from inside Windows using Virtualbox.
Cause it resembles the old ESXi Philosophy with Vsphere C# client
And you can do whatever you want with it, and for free. Especially when you use virt IO drivers for network and disk, you get nearly identical bare metal speeds.
But sadly its lacking other tools to allow users to connect and use the VM, you will have to do this from inside the VM like RDP and VNC.
If the article is accurate it would have to be a hypervisor. With a dom0 running an anorexic windows 8.
Sounds like they use the term RTOS as a code for hypervisor. They say it is an RTOS but then point out that it is not an OS (in that it doesn't run apps) and that it is a hypervisor (in that it hosts Windows 8.) So either their name is wrong, or their description is.
Ok, I didnt read the article, I commented based on things i heard from Paul Thurrott.
So I'll admit my understanding might have been wrong.
As a side note, Xbox one has been upgraded to Windows 10 now....
It's weird that the article claims it's a partition not a VM....
Partition and VM are not competing concepts. Lots of VMs are partitions. One thing (VM vs physical) is about how it runs. Partition vs. something else is just where it is stored. Nothing in saying it is a partition suggests that it is not a VM.
Now we only have the article to go on, but the article seems pretty clear that it is a VM. But what it really is, no idea.
I've used their product before. It's pretty cool. If you have multiple servers (and are using the paid version), it will handle load balancing between the servers and all for you, automatically... Last time I tested it was with VMware.
Edit: Only the paid version does the automatic load balancing, IIRC.
You're right.. I have to keep reminding myself of that. But SMB's don't want to be chasing down dozens of little pieces all over the place to make these pieces work.
It's one thing or a larger company to have a team who's job it is to do just that - Scott's been talking about using Xen for decade plus. I have to assume that Scott the one man who is equal to nearly 10 normal mortals, has managed to collect and put together all of those parts.
The simplicity of XS and XO are what really give Xen any teeth in the SMB market, a la Windows style, everything in one place.
The bad thing about these groupings though, as we found out with the use of VHDs in XS, are the limitations those packages place upon us.
This is exactly correct. They want some hardware on-site (if they can't move to public cloud for some good reason) and they want somebody who owns the hardware also babysit it. Playing LEGO game with hardware and software isn't what most of the people can do EASILY (and one of the proves I'm right is why products like vRanger and AppAss still exist).
Not surprising. Hyper-V isn't really meant to be used in that way aside from admin tasks once in a while. It's really meant to be used to run servers/services. Not a desktop you access through it's own console.
That's why I am not completely shocked. But since Hyper-V has replaced VirtualPC and is being promoted for this specific use case I am a little surprised that getting it competitive with VirtualBox has not been a priority.