ESX Appliance?
-
@thanksaj Yep I don't recall being told any specifics but yes a Class 10 card would probably be right.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You CAN have an ESXi appliance. It would just be an appliance built off of ESXi. Just like Scale is an appliance built off of KVM. Same different.
Ok, so the idea is possible in theory, but tell me @scottalanmiller , have you ever heard someone refer to an ESX appliance they just bought? Or talk about getting a quote for an ESX appliance? It's just not a term you hear, at least in my experience.
-
@thanksaj said:
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.
They are both Type 1 (bare metal) hypervisors. They are "basically" the same thing. One is older, sure. One is more robust, sure. But basically, they are the same thing. Like Chevy and Ford, they are basically the same. But people who like one or the other will generally argue with you.
VMware is not more expensive. For most use cases, it is actually cheaper.
-
@thanksaj said:
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.
Everyone has a vMotion equivalent. That's actually a free feature of both HyperV and XenServer.
-
@coliver said:
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.
That would be like calling anything an appliance. A server is an appliance because it does one thing... sit there and be the hardware. The OS does one thing, it hosts applications. The application is an appliance because it only does one task.
-
@thanksaj said:
Isn't Xen free?
Both Xen (just the hypervisor like ESXi) and XenServer (the ecosystem like vSphere) are completely free, there is nothing to buy whatsoever. vMotion, fault tolerance, storage vMotion, all of that stuff is free, included and limitless.
-
@thanksaj said:
Ok, so the idea is possible in theory, but tell me @scottalanmiller , have you ever heard someone refer to an ESX appliance they just bought? Or talk about getting a quote for an ESX appliance? It's just not a term you hear, at least in my experience.
Within the last week, yes. There was a discussion about it being so common that many VMware partners sell nothing but that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Ok, so the idea is possible in theory, but tell me @scottalanmiller , have you ever heard someone refer to an ESX appliance they just bought? Or talk about getting a quote for an ESX appliance? It's just not a term you hear, at least in my experience.
Within the last week, yes. There was a discussion about it being so common that many VMware partners sell nothing but that.
But not before that, right? I just don't think of ESX and appliance as being compatible terms in terms of generally accepted use, although, as you said you can technically make it work.
-
@coliver said:
Oh... I meant in comparison to Hyper-V not in comparison to Xen. A couple of the blog posts I've read on the cost to the enterprise has Hyper-V as the more expensive solution at that scale when compared with a similar VMWare solution.
Once you want any degree of management, HyperV has always been the most expensive option on the market. Given that their primary marketing strategy is people deploying it out of confusion being "cheap" doesn't help them sell more product. Being expensive just improves the profit margin.
-
@thanksaj said:
But not before that, right? I just don't think of ESX and appliance as being compatible terms in terms of generally accepted use, although, as you said you can technically make it work.
Apparently it has been pretty popular for a while. I guess HP and Dell both sell vSphere appliances now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
But not before that, right? I just don't think of ESX and appliance as being compatible terms in terms of generally accepted use, although, as you said you can technically make it work.
Apparently it has been pretty popular for a while. I guess HP and Dell both sell vSphere appliances now.
Weird. I've just never heard the term until today. And you saying that is the first time I've heard it used in an accepted context.
-
@thanksaj said:
That has always irked me about Hyper-V. It's not a true hypervisor. It's basically a hypervisor-esque application running inside Windows.
What? HyperV is as much a hypervisor as any. And it is a type 1 at that (ESXi, HyperV, Xen and KVM are the four enterprise, type 1 bare metal hypervisors on the AMD64 market today.) It is in no way not a hypervisor. In no way not a type 1 and in no way runs on or in Windows and is not an application.
-
@coliver said:
No, it is a true hypervisor, it runs underneath the Windows Server. It is basically the same as how Xen does it with Dom0.
Yes, it was modeled directly after Xen. Same architecture. It's how ESXi did it until 5.0 released too.
-
And @scottalanmiller is back to posting on ML after a brief absence.
-
@thanksaj said:
Never touched Xen in my life, so I can't say one way or another with that.
You should, it is the hypervisor that I think makes it easiest to learn about and understand what is actually happening.
-
@thanksaj said:
And @scottalanmiller is back to posting on ML after a brief abcense.
Was playing AoE2 for one game.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
And @scottalanmiller is back to posting on ML after a brief abcense.
Was playing AoE2 for one game.
Oh sure, be that way...
-
Lol -
@thanksaj said:
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
You are SUPPOSED to run HyperV from SD card exactly like ESXi. It is the same best practice in both cases. You can run from disk in both cases too. The SD card is just a slow SSD in this case, so under the hood the hypervisor doesn't know the difference anyway.
What do you mean by "install to the device?" Every hypervisor is installed to the device, it has to be since type 1 hypervisors are installed on the physical server instead of an OS.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
You are SUPPOSED to run HyperV from SD card exactly like ESXi. It is the same best practice in both cases. You can run from disk in both cases too. The SD card is just a slow SSD in this case, so under the hood the hypervisor doesn't know the difference anyway.
What do you mean by "install to the device?" Every hypervisor is installed to the device, it has to be since type 1 hypervisors are installed on the physical server instead of an OS.
I meant installed on the system drives/RAID array directly instead of on a flash media source like an SD card or flash drive. My mistake.
