@thanksaj Haha sadly agreed I can't seem to find the one I am looking for and the other ones are Microsoft or VMware sponsored...

@thanksaj said:

@coliver said:

@thanksaj said:

@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?

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.

Really? Even though a lot of the enterprises that I've seen have VERY high level VMware licensing, it's still cheaper?

I'll see if I can't dig up the blog posts.

@thanksaj said:

@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?

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.

@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.

@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:

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).

@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.

@thanksaj said:

@coliver said:

@thanksaj said:

@IRJ said:

@Minion-Queen said:

@thanksaj remember it was the fact that you wouldn't let it go that was the issue.

Sometimes its better to just let someting like that go. There is no sure fire way to win something like that. I dont think Quorum is signing people up by the thousands or anything. You said all the reviews were prety much local , right?

At one point, when they had around 100 reviews, I went through and looked at the Spiceheads who had submitted reviews. Out of the 100ish people, there were less than 5 that were Poblano or higher in spicy rating. Almost all were Pimento or Sonora. Sean argued that some people had been on SW for years. The fact was it was people who had created accounts years ago, never posted not even once, and then did reviews. So because they had an old, unused account, it gave them validity? No. Contributions to the community gives you validity.

To be fair it took me ~2 years to actually make a post on SW. Prior to that I was lurking, although I created a new account when I did start to post.

Lurking doesn't really mean much. If you aren't contributing, then no value is being added. Even if those people who all posted Quorum reviews lurked daily for years, which a large majority were brand new accounts (could tell by date created on the account), unless they are adding to a discussion, what does their opinion matter?

They are customers. Of course I agree that the Quorum rep shouldn't have called them "Spiceheads" he could have easily called them IT Pros and still linked to the review page.

@g.jacobse said:

@scottalanmiller said:

The goatee is always there. The beard is new.

Ok - having some trouble comparing that image to your profile icon..... something seems off....

No offense intended (which usually means people are going to say something incredibly offensive) but it looks like @scottalanmiller lost a significant amount of weight between his profile picture and the one posted in this thread.

@thanksaj Oh... yep even with Windows 8.1/Server 2012 R2 the basic interface is extremely clunky. No where near as polished as vCenter.

@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.

@thanksaj said:

@IRJ said:

@Minion-Queen said:

@thanksaj remember it was the fact that you wouldn't let it go that was the issue.

Sometimes its better to just let someting like that go. There is no sure fire way to win something like that. I dont think Quorum is signing people up by the thousands or anything. You said all the reviews were prety much local , right?

At one point, when they had around 100 reviews, I went through and looked at the Spiceheads who had submitted reviews. Out of the 100ish people, there were less than 5 that were Poblano or higher in spicy rating. Almost all were Pimento or Sonora. Sean argued that some people had been on SW for years. The fact was it was people who had created accounts years ago, never posted not even once, and then did reviews. So because they had an old, unused account, it gave them validity? No. Contributions to the community gives you validity.

To be fair it took me ~2 years to actually make a post on SW. Prior to that I was lurking, although I created a new account when I did start to post.

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.

@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.

@thanksaj said:

cough Quorum cough

I noticed that too.

One of the other ones I saw was GetSynced but it looks like they have been removed.

@Hubtech said:

this is my new shave toy

I think that is the one I am looking at.

Oooh not having the use Mono on Linux... this is going to be good.

I'm seriously considering buying a safety razor. I haven't found a multi-bladed razor that doesn't give me razor burn... and the electrics would never shave close enough. I've tried different gels, creams, etc... even after shave and nothing seems to work right. I've heard straight or safety razors don't necessarily have that issue.

@thanksaj said:

@IRJ said:

@coliver said:

@IRJ said:

@coliver said:

I've always had better luck calling a local place to get flowers... It just seemed odd going with an online company when a local one both existed and had better pricing/response.

This. It shows a little more thought as well.

Actually I generally forget until I'm on my way home from work... then I suddenly remember and stop at one of the local places.

Well if he is ordering them online, He is setting up a delivery. So it cant be too last minute

I'm over 1400 miles from the destination location...so yea...

Ah I could see the appeal of 1800Flowers at that point... but still you can search a local florist in the area and they generally will deliver. I was doing that when my girlfriend (now fiance) was living in Cooperstown and I was in Rochester.

@IRJ said:

@coliver said:

I've always had better luck calling a local place to get flowers... It just seemed odd going with an online company when a local one both existed and had better pricing/response.

This. It shows a little more thought as well.

Actually I generally forget until I'm on my way home from work... then I suddenly remember and stop at one of the local places.