Michael Ray
Comparison between VMware and Microsoft HyperV
ITT Technical Institute

Upon first glance when comparing Microsoft HyperV for server 2012 and VMware vSphere 5.5, several differences shine out for me that place HyperV above VMware. As we are all aware (in this industry) that VMware has had virtualization in place since 2001, that doesn’t make it the best choice, just based on seniority. The fact that vSphere is used primarily in systems with open source OS doesn’t make it the best choice for business either. On that, some people are die hard Linux fans who will say and do anything to prove how much they dislike Microsoft. It’s comical because the one company they detest is responsible for easily 90% of the growth in this field. If Microsoft had not been so successful, where would we be now in terms of overall business computing? It seems likely that manufacturers update and improve their products in order to stay one or two steps ahead of the competition. In one way, this stagnates evolution and leaves businesses wanting more without ever getting it. It seems funny that businesses aren’t asking for things, or don’t know they want things that haven’t even been created yet. In that vein, computer users and network geeks only use what’s available to them for the most part. .Few companies have a development team to add to what Microsoft has done. To improve the benefit of the purchased software I mean. That is left to software development companies. VMware gets a lot of attention because it isn’t Microsoft and also deserves some attention because it isn’t Microsoft. The differences in the two versions of virtualization speak to those people who are in one camp or the other. Microsoft has always brought to the table products that are ready to go and don’t need a lot of preening and extra work. Some of the things listed below address the way in which Microsoft works well with its intended OS and shows also how VMware works with its intended open source OS’s. As stated, Windows Server 2012 R2 and HyperV work well together and are inclusive. VMware vSphere requires two additional purchases to get the same functionality from the Microsoft offerings. You will need vCloud suite and VMware NSX for a complete shoulder to shoulder comparison. In many cases, VMware does provide the same service as Hyper, but it take more software to get it done. thus the need for vCloud and NSX. Some of the eye-opening differences are that there is no data encryption available for VMware, as opposed to Bit Locker for Microsoft. Microsoft allows for integrated application load balancing, VM does not. Hyper V allows for live migration support where vSphere by itself does not (vCloud is required). One other big difference in the number of vm that can be on a host or the number of hosts in a cluster. Both allow 320 logical hosts. HyperV allows for 1024 active vm’s per host versus 512 for vSphere. HyperV allows for 64 physical hosts per cluster versus 32 for vSphere. And the maximum number of VM’s per cluster is 8,000 for HyperV and 4000 per vSphere. And finally, when talking about money, the support you pay for may be the same in the end. Al a carte may be cheaper initially, but when you add all the items you need to run your enterprise or data center size element, it comes down to how you want to be supported. If you take advantage of open source software and don’t frequently have hardware and connection issues, VM may be the way to go. Licensing is another issue. Seats are paid for by the type of Windows Server version you need and additional seats may be stacked to save money. With VM, each seat must be purchased separately and be assigned within a cluster or node and that’s the only place that seat may reside. In this comparison, there is no clear winner. It still comes down to where a company is today, what their needs truly are and how scalable they want their network and virtualization to be,