- Queries the following Comparison is trying to Answer:
- VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3 VS Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
- How does MS Virtual Server compare to VMware VI3?
- Advantages & Disadvantages of Microsoft Virtual Server & VMware VI3
- What is better VMware VI3 or MS Virtual Server 2005? How?
- Independent Unbiased Comparison MS Virtual Server & VMware VI3
VMware VI3 VS MS Virtual Server 2005Introduction:
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 Microsoft Virtual server 2005 R2 vs VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3, but other comparisons are available and you can choose them from the menu. Below is our unbiased comparison, but we still offer the some what biased comparisons which can find at the links below.
| VMware/EMC | Microsoft | |
| URL | Vmware.com | Microsoft.com/virtual server |
| ITComparison Comments | VMware 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 | Infrstructure v3 (Starter, Standard, 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 | $1000 – $5750 (two CPU versions) | Free |
| ITComparison Comments -: MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 VS VMware VI3:- | This can really be misleading as for MS Virtual Server you stillhave to pay for the host operating system, which you don’t have to do if using VMware. In addition, in VMware VI3 you can run morevirtual machines on the same specs machine as its running bare-metaland waste less resource than Microsoft virtualization solution and inmany cases that it self will make up for the cost differences. Don’t let the initial price fool you. | |
| Primary usage | Production Environment | Testing & Development Environment |
| ITComparison Comments | MS Virtual Server is mostly implemented in testing and developmentenvironment in the enterprise, comparing to VMware which are matureenough for production environment. | |
| Required Host OS (if any) | Infra v3:bare metal | Windows Server 2003 SP1,XP Pro SP2 (for testing purposes only) |
| ITComparison Comments-: MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 VS VMware VI3:- | VMware bare-metal installation harden the security of its product and make it independent of any operating system security risks and breaches unlike the Microsoft Virtual Server which unfortunately still affected by the underlying OS (Windows 2003) bugs, viruses, andsecurity breaches. In addition, not using underlying OS make it moreresource efficient. | |
| Management tools | Virtual Center | System Center Virtual MachineManager 2007 |
| ITComparison Comments | Microsoft has just released their System Center VirtualMachine Manager 2007. Its not as rich as the VMware Virtual Centerfeatures wise as its still in its early days, but it do what it meant for. | |
| Support resources | High | Medium |
| ITComparison Comments | Microsoft might have more support resources than VMware,but not when it comes to virtualization, though they are investing intothat direction. | |
| Supported Guest OS | – Microsoft Windows NT4.0/2000/2003/XP/Vista – Red Hat Enterprise 2.1/3/4/5 – Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1 – Redhat Linux 7.2/7.3/8.0/9.0 – SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 8/9/10- SUSE Linux 8.2/9.0/9.1/9.2/9.3-FreeBSD 4.9/4.10/4.11- NetWare 6.5/6.0/5.1 – Solaris 10 for X86 – Vista (Experimental Support)- Windows 2008 Beta (Experimental Support) – Windows 2003 Standard/Enterprise SP1/SP2/R2 64-bit + Virtual SMP (Supported in Production) | – 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 | Its obvious that VMware has production support for more OSthan Microsoft. In addition, MS Virtual server support for Linux requiresan additional extension and is not directly developed by Microsoft. | |
| Performance | – Higher Performance- More virtual Machines per hardware | – Slower Performance- fewer Virtual Machines per hardware |
| ITComparisonComments | The performance advantage of VMware is related directly with it beingrunning bare-metal and have a smaller foot print than Microsoft VirtualServer. | |
| 64-bit Support | Has full support for most of the 64-bit Operating Systems. | 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 VMware support them. | |
| Live Migration(VMotion)High Availability(HA)Dynamic Resources(DRS) | SupportedSupportedSupported | Not SupportedNot SupportedNot Supported |
| ITComparisonComments | Its a great features that VMware came up with and Microsoft still does not offer any equivalence as it highly reduce the needs for hardware maintenance windows, downtime, and balance resources. | |
| Special Hardware Requirement | Require supported SCSI or SATA controllers. | Does not require any. |
| ITComparisonComments | This is an advantage of Microsoft Virtual Server as you can run it on any PC without requiring any special controllers, but its still not a full win as VMware have their free virtual server being able to run without requiring that type of controllers as well. | |
Other Related Comparisons:
Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V VS VMware ESX 4.0
Xen Server Enterprise VS VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 VS Xen Server Enterprise
Microsoft Windows Hyper-V (WSV) VS VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3.5
Enjoy & Share the Knowledge,
Category: Virtualization