*Virtualization* championship

Here are rules:
Number of servers – 1 point for server, 5 points max
Hyper-V – 10 points
Hyper-V R2 – 10 points
System Center – 5 points
High Availability – 3 points
Web server – 5 points

100 hosts vSphere project with High Availability and Site Disaster Recovery will lose 18 to 25 to Hyper-V project with 2 low-end hosts and 5-6 VMs.

What is it? It’s not just a usual marketing bullshit, it’s highly purified and concentrated bullshit.

1) Cases for big companies are not always big cases.
2) It is no strange at all that after 2 years of very aggressive marketing including lies Microsoft has some cases.

It wouldn’t be news for you that most such decisions are made by top-management for political reasons or under influence of professional sales and there was no technical comparisons, no technical experts were asked etc.

I said what I heard, nothing more.

After all Hyper-V, especially R2, is not THAT bad solution, but it seriously lacks a lot of features that vSphere has. As Eric said problem with drivers and patches are not THAT bad with Hyper-V, but it exists! We’re engineers, so let all the marketing bullshit be thrown away.

Actually it is not Hyper-V we discuss 90% of time in such conversations, but Microsoft marketing statements about it.

1. The slide showing those driver crash statistics includes the desktop versions of Windows where bad drivers or flaky hardware are much more common.

2. The %age is useless anyway. What you care about is frequency. Let’s say I have a server OS that crashes ten times in a year, with seven of them related to driver problems, now somebody wants me to run a server OS that crashes 100 times a year, with 70 of them due to driver problems. Both have the same percentage of crashes related to drivers, but I know which one I’d want!

Frankly, I’d beamazed if crashes due to device drivers wasn’t the case for the majority of crashes in any x86 OS, that’s where you get closest to the hardware and where errors are almost invariably unrecoverable for the OS.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by lamw: RT @eric_gray: VCritical: It’s not Hyper-V — it’s the drivers! http://bit.ly/a6OUoh...

Fernando, Anton: you guys are the best. Thanks for being Friends of VCritical(tm).

I am trying to get people to think about Hyper-V as part of an irreducibly complex system that depends on Windows drivers, kernel, networking, and other services to function.

Last month there was a fair amount of “first Hyper-V patch ever!” rhetoric, which completely dismisses the reality that the module that consists of the Windows hypervisor is not an autonomous system — the rest of the Windows OS is just as much a part of the hypervisor host. This is not a patching discussion, so I will stop there.

I do find it amusing that you are so quick to jump on me about misusing numbers when Microsoft execs have been telling bold-faced lies about Hyper-V stats since the beginning. “One million Hyper-V downloads” and “24% market share after one month” are two favorites.