Server Virtualization Software Forum

Rhea Rapps
Content Specialist
IT Central Station
May 01 2018
One of the most popular comparisons on IT Central Station is KVM and vSphere. People like you are trying to decide which one is best for their company. Can you help them out? What is the biggest difference between these two solutions? Which would you recommend as a Server Virtualization Software? Thanks for helping your peers make the best decision! --Rhea
Ulrich VogtService Virtualization has nothing to do with KVM and vSphere. KVM and vSphere are tools/environments to virtualize systems/servers, not services. Service Virtualization is used to virtualize a Web service or a Message-based service. KVM and vSphere are used to virtualize Linux or Windows systems. So, I assume you got confused by the very similar name of both. If I misunderstood the questions, please let me know. I am happy to help. BTW, you can run Service Virtualization on virtualized Linux and Windows boxes. There are many of comparisons of KVM and vSphere on the internet, see, for instance, https://community.spiceworks.com/virtualization/articles/2768-server-virtualization-is-a-free-hypervisor-good-enough-or-should-you-pay Hope that helps.
Jun Kai NgKVM is a simple and OpenStack-preferred virtual machine manager. vSphere is a different beast altogether, as it is expensive and ridden with lots of add-ons for VM infrastructure provisioning. One answer to your question will be a company that can afford and wants to have a stable and long-term VM infrastructure can consider VMWare, as KVM is considered as a bare-bone VM manager. The actual comparison should be between VMWare and OpenStack, as one is paid and one is free to deploy. The deployment for OpenStack can be a little trial and error as it is free and modular, and VMWare is fully-packaged, and it is easier for you to deploy, but at a cost that is calculated by per host.
Aernoud van de GraaffIf you run applications that are not relying on infra you can run that on KVM. VSphere offers more functionallity to support the application from a infra perspectve. Most traditional enterprise apps I would not run on KVM, also taking into account the support you may need, but apps build for OStack or OShift should run fine. From a cost perspective VMware is mire expensive to buy, but from a TCO perspective that may flip depending on the workloads you are running. Don’t get blinded by SW being ‘free’. It never is, weather you have to buy support, or arrange / deliver it yourself, you have to give back to the open community, and may need more tiols or scripts if you need to cover functionality you need that is not Standard avalable in KVM, again depending on your workloads and their requirements
Rhea Rapps
Content Specialist
IT Central Station
One of the most popular comparisons on IT Central Station is Proxmox VE vs XenServer  Which of these two solutions would you recommend for Server Virtualization Software? Why? Thanks!--Rhea
Juan Dominguez I appreciate you reaching out to me on this. I, unfortunately, have not installed, tested or see Proxmox VE. I have performed many deployments of XenServer using both iSCSI and FC. The XenServer product is easy to manage and install and will provide more mainstream support. Meaning, if there is an issue with an aspect within the deployment, you will most likely be more able to find support through the communities, blogs and Citrix documentation than you will for the other product. There is a larger corpus of XenServer deployments in my estimation than there is for the Proxmox VE product. I would suggest the engineer below does their due diligence and installs the products in a lab environment. Then perform a bake-off of sorts. This will enable them to gain further insight to the capabilities, drawbacks and sometimes incompatibilities that they may not have been aware of. XenServer supports lots of hardware, it is secure, easy to deploy, manage and operate. It has many similar features to VMware, but it also lends itself well to existing Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop environments already in production to facilitate a few more feature add-ons and performance enhancements. XenServer is a good product, it just lags behind the other major player Hyper-V and VMware due to a lack of marketing in my opinion. I hope this helps and good luck.
Fábio RabeloMy 5 cents : Go with Proxmox . It is NOT just a wrapper for KVM, it has a lot of features that are not present in plain KVM . It is extremely easy to set it up, you can have a 16 node cluster up and running in a single day of work ! Everything you need to manage your storage space, whatever it is, shared or centralized, CEPH, DRBD, iSCSI, NFS, ZFS or any other File System supported by Linux . You even have some VDI oriented features . The web interface are straightforward and very intuitive . All of it with less than a half of the cost of XEN ( or a mere fraction of the cost of VMWare or HyperV ) I am using it for 10 years or so, since 2.2 version . And, you can try it without any cost or vendor support, just download the image and install, use it for a month, if you thing that Proxmox do not have all the features you need, then go to something else. it won't hurt your budget .
Mario-FernandezIt's easy, with the new version of XenServer you lose several features that you will need on production: https://xenserver.org/blog/entry/xenserver-7-3-changes-to-the-free-edition.html Use Proxmox VE. :)
Rhea Rapps
Content Specialist
IT Central Station
Please share your opinions and advice about VMware and Hyper-V. If you've used both and prefer one over the other, it would be helpful to hear why.
Aykut HakverdiIt depends. I would say both for the present. I cannot avoid using both anyway. Most of the security apps I use require a vmware hypervisor whereas hyper-v serves better for the microsoft apps.
Bartosz KowalskiHyperV. I am using HyperV past few years without any problems, before I used VMware. In my last two companies I migrated the infrastructure from VMware to HyperV. One big reason is the cost. VMware is still very expensive. HyperV is coming for free. If you have budget , it is nice to buy system center and then manage it with VMM but if you are too small for System Center you can buy third part HyperV manager for example 5 nine which is very cheap compare to system center, I am using now and it is great. http://www.5nine.com/5nine-manager-for-hyper-v-product.aspx HyperV works perfectly fine if it is setup right way. If someone says that their hyperV environment is going down every month, you better check your configuration. VMware is much easier to spin up and configure. You will need spend more time to understand the Hyper V configuration.
Ariel Lindenfeld
Sr. Director of Community
IT Central Station
Let the community know what you think. Share your opinions now!
Sven JohansenFor me personally all of the above are relevant, (except comments like virtual environments are very easy to use, but yet very hard to manage, they're not, they're just different and require more than a Windows Skillset) however I traditionally start from where its going to end and so the question is, what is this going to leave behind? What is the legacy of implementing this? If implementing something causes a technology or vendor lock in, massive support costs, proprietary hardware, specific skills training etc, then it is to be given serious deliberation as to whether it is viable option for the business/organisation in the long term. So my most important criteria is legacy followed by Can we do a Proof of Concept for free therefore minimising investment to just engineering time.
it_user209406I agree with all of the above I will add a -no nonsense approach-...a big dose of simplicity--many a software that has a great capability is immediately thrown out by users or Tech guys and cause a tremendous loss of business hours because of its highly Academic approach and fancy wordings. Here are some examples..Yahoo is successful because of its straight forward interface. Google one line search approach is another example..Windows 8 was not successful because of its nonsense interface..VMWare workstation is the best example of a successful Interface...One will not need much support if the software is TIDY..in today s age time is of the essence...Tech people must be able to intuitively navigate and learn on the spot and so are the user .so INTERFACE is KEY followed by what the gentlemen described.
Hieu Nghiem BaA good solution must meet a balance between cost, performance, management, availability and scalability.

Sign Up with Email