Virtualization Review's hypervisor test

Say it isn’t so: Hyper-V and XenServer outperform ESX - boche.net - VMware Virtualization Evangelist

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:21:31 GMT

PingBack from http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/

Server Virtualization – Platform Performance

Swiss IT Professional and TechNet Blog — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:38:42 GMT

Virtualization Review published a comparative performance test of three hypervisors: VMware ESX 3.5,

Server Virtualisierung – Platform Performance

Schweizer IT Professional und TechNet Blog — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:41:28 GMT

" Virtualisierung Review " hatte einen Vergleichende Performance Test veröffentlicht über drei

Virtualization Review's hypervisor test is fundamentally flawed

VirtualJ — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:11 GMT

I can't even begin to point out all of the flaws in this performance test. Shame on you Microsoft for linking too it. Even your own internal testing isn't this off base.

Every test I've done comparing any of these threer hypervisors pits best practice against best practice. When I setup Hyper-V the way Microsoft says is right and ESX the way VMware says is right (either corrected by my own experience) the difference is negligible in almost all comparisons.

The only real clear victor is in ESX's ability to get more VMs on the same hardware, and no one disputes that superiority.

The only comparisons you should more embarrassed by are your cost comparisons of a home basement class Hyper-V (without SSVMM or DPM or even a SAN) to an enterprise class deployment of VI3 with vMotion and DRS, HA, and VCB.

Stop trying to fake yourself better than you are. Hyper-V stands on it's own without skewed results and marketing spoiled so-called "benchmarks".

re: Virtualization Review's hypervisor test

dazone — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:21:59 GMT

If the goal was to compare Enterprise class hypervisors, a modern Enterprise class host server would have been more appropriate. A two CPU server with 16GB of memory? Guest servers with 1GB of memory?

Also, not sure why they excluded 64 bit guest O/Ses, do they not realize that with Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows is 64 bit only?