Queries the following Comparison is trying to Answer:
Citrix Xen Server Enterprise
VS Microsoft
Virtual Server 2005 R2
How does MS Virtual Server compare to
Citrix Xen Server Enterprise ?
Advantages & Disadvantages of Microsoft
Virtual Server & Xen Ent
What is better Citrix Xen Server
Enterprise or MS Virtual Server 2005? How?
Independent Unbiased Comparison MS
Virtual Server & Xen Server Enterprise
Citrix Xen
Server Enterprise
VS MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 Introduction:
Ok, decided on riding
the virtualization boat and confused on the right product for your company.
You are in the correct place as here we list the comparisons of most of the
virtualization solutions. On this page we will compare the Microsoft Virtual
server 2005 R2 & Xen, but other comparisons are
available and you can choose them from the menu on the left panel. Below is
our unbiased comparison, but we still offer the some what biased comparisons
which we has found at the links below
Microsoft Virtual
Server 2005 R2 VS Xen Enterprise 4 (Microsoft Biased)
Microsoft
Virtual Server 2005 R2 VS Xen Enterprise 4 (Xen Biased)
|
Xen |
Microsoft |
URL |
Xensource.com
Just moved to
www.citrixxenserver.com |
Microsoft.com/virtual server |
ITComparison Comments |
Xen
site is a bit easier to browse in regards of virtualization than Microsoft
site due to the fact its their core business and they don't offer as much
products to jam their site comparing to Microsoft. |
Product Name |
Xen(Express,
Server, and Enterprise) |
Virtual Server 2005 R2 (Standard and Enterprise) |
ITComparison Comments |
Both are doing as good in
regards of their naming convention. |
Pricing range paid product |
Free
- $2499 |
Free |
ITComparison Comments
-: MS Virtual Server 2005 vs Citrix Xen Server
Enterprise :- |
This can really be misleading
as for MS Virtual Server you still
have to pay for the host operating system,
which you don't have
to do if using Xen. In addition, in
VMware Xen you can run more
virtual machines on the same specs machine
as its running bare-metal
and waste less resource than Microsoft
virtualization solution and in
many cases that it self will make up for
the cost differences. Don't let
the initial price fool you. Though
Xen requires newer hardware as it needs Intel-VT or AMD-V to be supported
which can play a role in the cost if you have an older hardware available.
|
Primary usage |
Testing &
Development
Environment and
some what production. |
Testing &
Development
Environment |
ITComparison Comments |
MS Virtual Server is mostly implemented in
testing and development
environment in the enterprise, comparing to
Xen who are pushing hard to compete with VMware on production environment.
|
Required Host
OS (if any) |
Xen:bare metal |
Windows Server 2003 SP1,
XP Pro SP2 (for testing
purposes only) |
ITComparison Comments
-: MS
Virtual Server 2005 vs Citrix Xen Server Enterprise :- |
Xen bare-metal installation (though it has
a basic Linux Kernel in it) it still harden the security of its product
and make it less affected of
any operating system security risks and breaches unlike the Microsoft
Virtual Server which unfortunately still affected by all the underlying OS (Windows
2003) bugs, viruses, and security breaches. In addition, not using
underlying full fat OS make it more resource efficient. |
Management tools |
|
System Center Virtual Machine
Manager 2007 |
ITComparison Comments |
Microsoft has just released their System
Center Virtual
Machine Manager 2007. As well Xen has just
crafted their
|
Support resources |
Medium |
Medium |
ITComparison Comments |
Microsoft might seems to have more support resources
than Xen, but when it comes to virtualization both Microsoft & Xen are in
the same boat and they are investing into that direction.
|
Supported Guest OS |
64-bit
o Windows
Server 2003 Web, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter SP2
32-bit
o Windows Server 2003 Web,
Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter SP0/ SP1/SP2/R2
o Windows XP SP2
o Windows 2000 SP4
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(and derivatives (32-bit)): 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5
- Novell SUSE Linux
Enterprise Server(32-bit): 9SP2, 9SP3, 10SP1
- Debian(32-bit): Sarge
(3.1), Etch (4.0)
|
-
Microsoft Windows Server 2003
Standard/Enterprise SP1/SP2/R2
-
Windows XP Professional with SP2
-
Vista (Enterprise/Business/
Ultimate)
(non-production use)
- Microsoft Server 2008 Beta 3
(non-production use only)
-
OS/2 4.5
-
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
(update 7) - 3.0 (update 8) - 4.0
(update 4)
-
Suse Linux Enterprise 9.0/9.3/10.0 /10.1/10.2
-
Solaris 10
|
ITComparison Comments
-: MS Virtual Server 2005 vs Citrix Xen
Server Enterprise :- |
Both are quite tide on the number of Operating
Systems supported, but Xen has a more hardware requirements to run windows
OS(Intel-VT or AMD-V is required to run windows on Xen). Xen has to
enclose its hypervisor into Linux to perform well on it. Microsoft on the
other hand does not require any modification to the Operating Systems to
run on their Virtual Servers.
|
Performance |
- Higher
Performance
- More virtual
Machines per hardware |
- Slower Performance
- fewer Virtual Machines per
hardware |
ITComparison
Comments |
The performance advantage of Xen is related directly with it being
running at near bare-metal and have a smaller foot print than Microsoft Virtual
Server.
|
64-bit
Support |
support the 64-bit version of Windows Server
2003 Web, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter SP2 |
Does not support any 64-bit Operating Systems. |
ITComparison Comments |
Its odd that Microsoft still
does not support even their own 64-bit OS versions in their Virtual
Server, where Xen support them. |
Live Migration
(XenMotion)
High Availability
(HA)
Dynamic Resources
(DRS) |
Supported Not Supported
Not Supported |
Not Supported Not Supported
Not Supported |
ITComparison
Comments
-: MS Virtual Server 2005 vs Citrix Xen
Server Enterprise :- |
VMotion is a great features that VMware
came up with and Xen achieved the similar by implementing XenMotion and
Microsoft still does not offer any equivalence as XenMotion highly reduces
the needs for hardware maintenance windows and downtime is a great missed
feature in MS Virtual Server. |
Special Hardware Requirement |
Require newer server which has Intel-VT or AMD-V Processor. |
Does not require any. |
ITComparison
Comments |
This is an advantage of Microsoft Virtual Server as
you can run it on any PC or older server without requiring Processor. |
Other Related Comparisons:
VMware ESX 4.0 vs Hyper-V R2
Xen Server Enterprise
VS VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3
Microsoft
Virtual Server 2005 R2
VS VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3
Microsoft Windows Hyper-V
(WSV)
VS VMware Virtual
Infrastructure 3.5
Virtualization
Comparison
Forum:
Please post your requests, comments,
opinion, concern, and read other
readers comments at our
Virtualization Comparison
forum.
ITComparison
Official Blog:
Please Feel free to blog about
Virtualization, and read other readers blogging
at our
ITComparison Official Blog.
IT Comparison
Index:
Click
here to access our site index at our
home page.
|