For those who follow this blog, you have noticed that the blog is much more about Microsoft Virtualization and why you should use it and less about what is negative with the competition. While I do write and make comparisons with VMware, my goal is to promote Microsoft Virtualization.
Still, when I meet users and customers, especially at shows like TechEd EMEA and VMworld, I often get asked "why do comparison to VMware at all?" The honest answer is that we get asked for comparisons against VMware and often, we have to respond to negative attacks on Hyper-V. While it’s within anyone’s right to post their opinions on Hyper-V, lately, there has been a lot of comparisons and opinions that I feel fall into the FUD category. That’s why I felt compelled to write up something to respond.
What is FUD? I think a lot of people forget what FUD really stands for. FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD is when people make assertions or statements that simply are trying to scare people away from what they are attacking. FUD is not simply an argument that you don’t agree with. I do want to make clear that not everyone is pushing FUD. There are many articles and bloggers out there, including Pro-VMware ones, that are not pushing FUD. I read many of them regularly and I respect and appreciate what they write (even if I don’t always agree :) ). Unfortunately, lately, there still seems to be articles and posts, that people keep highlighting due to their provocative titles, that are more FUD than fact.
The issue is that the FUD being spread about Hyper-V is for one purpose, to get you not to try Hyper-V and System Center. Very few of the FUD articles say something like “Try both solutions out and compare". They all basically say “It’s not worth your time to try it, trust me” or “You might try it a little but don’t deploy it as it’s very risky and your business might suffer because of it.” This goes against the most basic point that I make on my site, which is to try Microsoft Virtualization , evaluate it, deploy it for workloads, ask others who have deployed it, and see for yourself.
What I want to do today is not address specific articles on Hyper-V. I want to address a couple of key facts to help sort through the FUD that is being posted. So let’s start:
My final point is one that based on my conversations over the years, that many of you agree with me on. Virtualization and Hypervisor choice is not like going to war. You don’t have to pick one side only and you don’t have to destroy the other side to successful. People take it way too seriously. Virtualization is a great technology but it’s simply that, a technology. Something we use to make our lives easier and better.
As I have stated throughout this post and in most of my posts, try Hyper-V and the Microsoft Virtualization products for yourself. That is the only way to determine what Microsoft Virtualization can do for you.
Edwin Yuen Senior Technical Product Manager – Virtualization
Edwin, can VMM manage an ESX host without Virtual Center? I already have a small number of ESXi servers that don't support Intel-VT so I can't run Hyper-V but already use other System Center tools. If SCVMM can manage an ESX host directly, then I would rather not spend the money for VirtualCenter.
No, VMM requires Virtual Center to manage ESX/ESXi servers. While VMM does some communicatoin directly to the hosts, to load VMM templates and other items, the majority of the work requires Virtual Center. VMM cannot manage ESX/ESXi without Virtual Center.