Newsletter 
RSS Feed 
FollowVMware is currently running a VMware ESXi scripting contest. Top prize is $2500, which is not too shabby for doing something productive.
Check out the details and get scripting!
Looks like I was on to something a few weeks back when I showed how Microsoft had tried — but failed — to implement a feature that would allow Hyper-V R2 to accommodate the use of more virtual machine memory than available on the underlying physical host.
A screenshot of Dynamic Memory configuration in a post-RTM build of Windows Server 2008 R2 has surfaced in an article at Softpedia.
Listen… Do you hear that?
It’s the sound of Microsoft Virtualization curbing their criticism of memory overcommit.
Hat tip to Aidan Finn.
Tags: Hyper-V, memory overcommit
I just read a fascinating article on the Microsoft Virtualization blog from a special guest poster responding to the recent InformationWeek article that cited 9 reasons Hyper-V is not ready for the Enterprise.
The author worked extra hard to refute all 9 points — but I do admit being somewhat distracted by the gratuitous use of VMWare throughout. Evidently, proofreading — unlike immeasurable technology and services discounts — is not one of the benefits extended to guest posters these days, which is a shame.
The Microsoft Virtualization MVP tries to use most of the pages from the playbook, such as memory overcommit FUD:
Relying on a host to overcommit memory to support failover hosts is potentially dangerous and incorrect oversubscription leads to all VMs suffering from performance.
Have you ever had a VM suffer from performance? I have, and believe me — it’s not pleasant.
But here is a familiar line:
… I would never over commit my VM hosts in production.
Where have we heard that before? I almost forgot to mention that this guest poster is none other than Chris Steffen — the star of that now-infamous CIO Magazine article who once called VMotion a “gimmick” and said: Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: ESX, Hyper-V, live migration, memory overcommit, VMotion
Dear Readers,
Thank you for supporting VCritical in the latest round of vSphere-land top virtualization blogs from Eric Siebert.
I am very pleased to be voted into the #12 slot among a huge selection of talented professionals, moving up one notch from my previous position at lucky #13.
The message is clear — I will continue writing about VMware and competitive topics and I very much appreciate your ongoing support!
Best regards,
Eric
The ability to assign more memory to virtual machines than physically available on a host is called memory overcommit and is a major factor that contributes to higher VM density — running more virtual machines per host increases efficiency and reduces cost. VMware ESX has provided this feature for multiple generations, giving it an advantage over competing hypervisors.
The Cost Per Application Calculator makes it clear that investing in VMware vSphere 4 significantly reduces your datacenter hardware footprint and associated costs. Scott Drummonds, the VMware performance expert, recently explained how memory overcommit is the only way to effectively use all of the physical RAM in a hypervisor.
Each time this topic comes up, Microsoft revs up their marketing machine and responds like this:
- Hyper-V is free, use your money to buy RAM upgrades instead of VMware vSphere licenses
- Memory overcommit is risky, VMware tells customers to turn it off anyway
The truth is that Hyper-V will have memory overcommit the moment Microsoft figures it out. If that day ever does come, watch the messaging quickly change to the familiar, “our customers asked us to implement this…” line.
Why is it fair to make such a bold claim? Two words: Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: ESX, Hyper-V, memory overcommit, vSphere
Disclaimer
The views and opinions published on this site are my own and not approved or endorsed by my employer, VMware, Inc.
Recommended Reading
Recent Comments