Comments on: Hyper-V Dynamic Memory: Not Quite Ready to Demo!

By: Lindley

Lindley — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:15:15 +0000

By the way, this is my first time to this site. It has good contents on VMWare, but it is seriously biased. If you discuss all the technologies is a non-biased terms, you would have more repeat readers. People are turned off my overly biased writings and opinions.

By: Lindley

Lindley — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:11:37 +0000

We can all discuss the merits of either technology between MS Hyper-V and VMWare and even Citrix, but what I am seeing today in the SMB space is Microsoft all the way. I do not even see VMWare except old installations (2.x or 3.x products). You take a Windows 2008 Server out of the box and enable Hyper-V role, and you have a VM platform. Microsoft made it too easy – this is the critical point. VMWare may be more mature, but do you really think MS is sitting still? In 3-5 years, Hyper-V installs will dwarf VMWare, thanks primarily to the SMB space. Oh, and lastly, the VSS snapshots of the VHD’s…no extra cost. VMWare and other vendors, extra. For DR purposes, you can have a flexible setup in terms of destination / file system / backup / restore options – all free with Hyper-V.

By: Hypervisor Wars : Core Parking GreenbullshIT - Hypervisor.fr

Hypervisor Wars : Core Parking GreenbullshIT - Hypervisor.fr — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:46:55 +0000

[...] Même si le CPU représente une part non négligeable de la consommation d’un serveur, il n’est question en moyenne que d’1/4 à 1/3 de la consommation totale. Mais quelque chose nous dit que M$ a fini par s’en apercevoir, ils n’ont juste pas encore prévenu Symon. Néanmoins, pour pouvoir consolider au maximum il faut un peu mieux que Dynamic Memory… [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:01:19 +0000

Clearly… VMware is.. SKEERD… and rightfully so.. this blog is clear evidence of the gap closing fast ..

MS is commoditizing virtualization (at least in the Windows world).. so ya.. VMware should create some more competitor bashing blogs.. They’ll need the FUD to stay afloat..

I guess at least the *nix folks can keep paying for vmware .. irony indeed…

No sense bothering to reply.. I wont be back to this site … ever.. its complete and utter FUD.

Good luck with it…

By: Kendrick

Kendrick — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:30:53 +0000

HA! Euphamism, huh? You guys are so pompous that you think people that disagree with your arrogance are drones or something for the competetion. The reality is, DM and Overcommit are two very different implementations and leave it to VMware to keep saying that they did everything first, so it’s got to be better, right? I guess we’ll all wait and see how long that flies…

The grim reality (euphamism for VMware not sure what do with Microsoft beating down their door…) is that both products are very good. But, VMware is all about features – you have to be. So, you release alpha code crap like Fault Tolerance and charge customers for it to show your innovating and setup blogs like these paying FTE’s to beat down competitors that are years late to the game but coming on strong in any attempt to maintain that foothold.

Once again, the mere fact that your best material at this point is nit-picking a crappy MMS demo you saw on DM is all that needs to be said about how the game is changing.

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:01:41 +0000

“Misunderstanding” was merely a euphemism. You came to the defense of Hyper-V ill-prepared, unaware of the advanced resource management capabilities vSphere administrators have enjoyed for years.

By: Kendrick

Kendrick — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:32:22 +0000

What a joke – Eric closes down a thread with an emphatic “there are misunderstandings about VMware technology, thanks in no small part to Microsoft claims”.

I’ve never seen a company with such a dominant market position talk so much crap about a competitor with something like half of their share, maybe less. And then, on a public forum cry and whine about how their product is so misunderstood because of said competitor. You have got to be kidding me.

Most of the stuff you publish here is straight up FUD, it’s your job. This post is nothing short of that. When all you have left is to nit-pick a crappy demo done at a Microsoft conference (as if we all don’t know, including yourself that it was just that – a crappy demo and not indicitive of the products capabilities), then it’s certainly a sad day for VMware.

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:42:55 +0000

With vSphere you just set VM RAM and you’re done. Adjusting shares are optional — equivalent to the priority feature in Hyper-V.

I did not say the session was misleading, just the demo.

It’s clear that there are misunderstandings about VMware technology, thanks in no small part to Microsoft claims. Glad we could sort this one out.

By: Kendrick

Kendrick — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:31:18 +0000

hmmmm….use reservations, or limits or shares…or some combonation of 2 or more of those…but you have to know exactly what your use cases are to figure out which one(s) to use…or use DM and set a start-up and max value and you’re done.

I attended the DM session at MMS and I didn’t think it was misleading at all. A good demo, certainly not.

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:39:54 +0000

Okay, if reservations are not suitable then use shares to specify priority.

Sounds like you were not even aware of the resource management capabilities in vSphere or you would not have made these claims about how ALL VMs are affected on ESX and that dynamic memory doesn’t have this particular problem because of an innovative priority concept.

Again, the statement you made is incorrect.

My post is not misleading, but that live demonstration of dynamic memory was.