5 ms·

This is really something I think people overlook. For a 2 socket server, the total cost for as many VMs as you want is under 8K in licensing for OS, Virtualizat

This is really something I think people overlook. For a 2 socket server, the total cost for as many VMs as you want is under 8K in licensing for OS, Virtualization platforms, management tools, with little to no limitation. I run a Hyper-V shop now, and I don't know that I would look back until I hit the performance limitations of Hyper-V. It doesn't make sense, especially if you're running Windows OSes on the HW.

ericd 13y ago
Xen+Xen-tools with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, unlimited VMs, 2 sockets per server: $0 per server, baby. Edit: Downvotes? I'm sharing my server setup, which is simple to set up (in conjunction with Puppet), works wonderfully, doesn't involve any bullshit RAM or core/socket limits, and doesn't cost you as much as the hardware in software licensing costs. Sorry if it was a bit flippant, but I think a better approach would be to point out the advantages that these extremely expensive bits of software bring over the free open source software that many of them are ultimately based on.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  For Unix workloads, sure, although I'd probably go the RHEL/KVM route. For windows workloads, I'm already buying HyperV, because it's part of windows. So why wouldn't I use it?
  - ericd 13y ago
    To be honest, I don't understand why anyone uses Windows as a server OS, except for things like Exchange servers. I'd probably not use HyperV because I'd only be running Windows in a container on a Xen machine with primarily linux VMs. Any particular reason for choosing RHEL? apt-get is so much better than yum in my experience, and if you go with the support contract, you're adding $1,000-$4,500 to the cost of the server over 3 years. That's a pretty substantial bump that I'd rather spend on more RAM...
    - shiftpgdn 13y ago
      There is a whole world of energy (Oil) companies, hospitals and finance where $4,500 is a rounding error in IT infrastructure costs. You pay for the support contracts and licenses because A. It's what everyone else uses. B. So when something breaks you can point a finger at the vendor and say "We're waiting on them." It's more about being able to CYA and defer liability than anything.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        Using what everyone else uses and covering one's ass is a sure way to prevent your IT from generating any competitive advantages.
        shiftpgdn 13y ago
        At these companies IT is a cost center, not a revenue generating department. That is to say, they are structured to where it doesn't matter. Go on Dice.com and search asp.net developers to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        I understand the issue. Even if IT is not considered a revenue generator, when properly managed, it can become a competitive advantage. And since so many companies treat IT as a cost center, subject it to all the "best practices" and use only "best-of-breed" solutions, turning IT into a competitive asset has never been so easy. The history of corporations is full of examples of not-very-bright companies vanquishing their competition only because they were the least incompetent in that segment and all their competition blundered itself into oblivion.
      - ericd 13y ago
        If it was just one server, that would be insignificant, but that could add 50% to your server costs (if you have a bunch of $10k servers, and you have to add a $5k support contract to each), that can end up being a significant increase in expense.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    A client of mine had several Linux VMs hosted with a company that relied on Hyper-V for their VPS product. Never in my life I saw so many prolems in such a small infrastructure. Volumes would seize and become unreadable, or would become unwritable for no apparent reason. Once, after an outage that lasted more than 24 hours, they had to bring in someone from Microsoft to solve the problem. After this, we moved our machines to EC2. We had some glitches, but none even close to that one. I know I am not Microsoft biggest fan, but it even seems like their software knows it.
- marshray 13y ago
  You seem to be neglecting the fact that a great many sites' workloads involve hosting Windows apps.
  - 4ad 13y ago
    So what? Xen can run Windows VMs (and so does KVM, except even better).
    - ericd 13y ago
      Yeah, Windows in itself doesn't seem like a very good reason to drop $X,000 more per server on a commercial virtualization solution vs. just going with Xen.
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      Buying Windows == Buying HyperV. They are one in the same. The argument for HyperV vs. VMWare is the same as KVM/Xen vs. VMWare.

ericd 13y ago

Xen+Xen-tools with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, unlimited VMs, 2 sockets per server: $0 per server, baby. Edit: Downvotes? I'm sharing my server setup, which is simple to set up (in conjunction with Puppet), works wonderfully, doesn't involve any bullshit RAM or core/socket limits, and doesn't cost you as much as the hardware in software licensing costs. Sorry if it was a bit flippant, but I think a better approach would be to point out the advantages that these extremely expensive bits of software bring over the free open source software that many of them are ultimately based on.

Spooky23 13y ago
For Unix workloads, sure, although I'd probably go the RHEL/KVM route. For windows workloads, I'm already buying HyperV, because it's part of windows. So why wouldn't I use it?
- ericd 13y ago
  To be honest, I don't understand why anyone uses Windows as a server OS, except for things like Exchange servers. I'd probably not use HyperV because I'd only be running Windows in a container on a Xen machine with primarily linux VMs. Any particular reason for choosing RHEL? apt-get is so much better than yum in my experience, and if you go with the support contract, you're adding $1,000-$4,500 to the cost of the server over 3 years. That's a pretty substantial bump that I'd rather spend on more RAM...
  - shiftpgdn 13y ago
    There is a whole world of energy (Oil) companies, hospitals and finance where $4,500 is a rounding error in IT infrastructure costs. You pay for the support contracts and licenses because A. It's what everyone else uses. B. So when something breaks you can point a finger at the vendor and say "We're waiting on them." It's more about being able to CYA and defer liability than anything.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Using what everyone else uses and covering one's ass is a sure way to prevent your IT from generating any competitive advantages.
      - shiftpgdn 13y ago
        At these companies IT is a cost center, not a revenue generating department. That is to say, they are structured to where it doesn't matter. Go on Dice.com and search asp.net developers to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
        rbanffy 13y ago
        I understand the issue. Even if IT is not considered a revenue generator, when properly managed, it can become a competitive advantage. And since so many companies treat IT as a cost center, subject it to all the "best practices" and use only "best-of-breed" solutions, turning IT into a competitive asset has never been so easy. The history of corporations is full of examples of not-very-bright companies vanquishing their competition only because they were the least incompetent in that segment and all their competition blundered itself into oblivion.
    - ericd 13y ago
      If it was just one server, that would be insignificant, but that could add 50% to your server costs (if you have a bunch of $10k servers, and you have to add a $5k support contract to each), that can end up being a significant increase in expense.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  A client of mine had several Linux VMs hosted with a company that relied on Hyper-V for their VPS product. Never in my life I saw so many prolems in such a small infrastructure. Volumes would seize and become unreadable, or would become unwritable for no apparent reason. Once, after an outage that lasted more than 24 hours, they had to bring in someone from Microsoft to solve the problem. After this, we moved our machines to EC2. We had some glitches, but none even close to that one. I know I am not Microsoft biggest fan, but it even seems like their software knows it.
marshray 13y ago
You seem to be neglecting the fact that a great many sites' workloads involve hosting Windows apps.
- 4ad 13y ago
  So what? Xen can run Windows VMs (and so does KVM, except even better).
  - ericd 13y ago
    Yeah, Windows in itself doesn't seem like a very good reason to drop $X,000 more per server on a commercial virtualization solution vs. just going with Xen.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    Buying Windows == Buying HyperV. They are one in the same. The argument for HyperV vs. VMWare is the same as KVM/Xen vs. VMWare.