I really enjoy these nice Microsoft blogs. They’ve got a nice way of putting things without giving the details. Start with reading this article. In short it refers to an article that is says is that an IT manager decided to go for Hyper-V because the 50.000 VMware was charging was to expensive and he could have an employee moving around VM’s for that kind of money.
My question to them is, so why go for Microsoft when you’ve got Citrix Xenserver with live migration or Virtual Iron with live migration. You could even build an opensource hypervisor with live migration and HA for that matter. VMware isn’t about live migration… if you still think it is, well than you’re stuck in 2005 and should move one asap!
By the way, I’m a VMware employee and if I would blog about this article I would pick this part about consolidation ratio:
Running Hyper-V means the company has been able to consolidate its 16 physical servers into just four Dell PowerEdge 2950 servers. It still runs 16 servers, but the remaining 12 are virtual instances.
So 4:1 with Hyper-V…. that’s a great score. But without the details this isn’t useful so I’m not going down that road.