>>>All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational >>>experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based >>>on my personal experience and interactions with others Not at all, Ben. I can speak from both side of the aisle as far as VMWare and VS are concerned, although my bias, to which I have already confessed, plays a role in my dislike of VMWare. My dislike, though, is driven largely based on the original (apples and oranges) statement to which I responded. I have not disputed that VMWare is ahead of VS at this present time. I have simply stipulated that the perceived gap is so considerably narrowed now that dismissing VS as a non-starter is no longer a technically sound or tenable position.
>>>However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual >>>environment provider. This is just wrong. Please see http://www.support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 You will also notice that my observation and opinion were based mostly on where we are today on VS 2005 SP1 Beta 2. I do not dispute that VMWare is superior, but at what cost? I disagree with your assertion that ESX is easier to deploy and manage than VS - that just defies logic (no offense). Not with the availability of System Center. When you need to provision a lab of, say, 20 servers running various OSes, and you are under the gun to get it done, like 4 hours ago, on a piece of recycled (Ebayed) hardware, ESX is not your friend. I was afraid that this thread will go down the undesirable path of "Us vs Them", and I apologize for making it so. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are looking for a Virtualization solution, VS does NOT stink one bit. Factor in the cost overlay, the deployment and maintenance efforts, divide that by what EXACTLY you are looking for in virtualization, then give VS a fair shake and not just go with the popular "VMWare Rules" opinion. ESX may have been sexy a while back when VS was truly ugly, but that is not the case today. VS is evolving, and you may just be pleasantly surprised that it adequately meets your need without breaking your bank and back. Sincerely, _____ (, / | /) /) /) /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ (_/ /) (/ Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.akomolafe.com - we know IT -5.75, -3.23 Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon From: Bernard, Aric Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 5:41 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Other points to clear up... MS supports VS2005 as it is there product. However, MS stated virtual machine support is the same regardless of virtual environment provider. MS recently (nore than a year ago?) made some changes to their licensing model for virtual environments in terms of the Windows OS and how many instances can be run given a single license. This is applicable to any virtual environment, not just VS2005. In my role I am a supporter (technically, politically, and marketing) of MS products. However, from an Enterprise perspective (management and operations) VMWare is generally regarded as the superior product for all the reasons mentioned and more. VMWare is not difficult to implement and operate as compared to VS2005 and from an enterprise perspective often considered easier to manage given the wide range of tools available for it. All indications to the contrary are likely due to insufficient operational experience with the product - not an attack on anyone just a statement based on my personal experience and interactions with others. That Sent from my Windows Mobile device. -----Original Message----- From: "Brett Shirley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org" <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> Sent: 1/20/07 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)? ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> one runs on bare metal and other runs under a host OS > > Actually, that's a sleight of hand. ESX runs on a VMware-cooked Linux Kernel. > So, one can argue that, because it is bundled with its own "OS", ESX does not > really "run on bare metal" in the way some people describe it. > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > From: Noah Eiger > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > > > I realize this is now getting a bit OT, but. > > Deji, I think the fruit distinction is based on the fact that one runs on > bare metal and other runs under a host OS. (Or at least that is how I have > always thought of them.) Beyond that, I agree there are simply feature > comparisons. > > That said, (and with the caveat that I have not worked with ESX) I find the > MS product to be much simpler than VM Server (nee GSX). I started halfway > down the path of migrating my MS VMs to VM Server and found it overly complex > and the video emulation performance using the VM Ware client was so bad as to > be unacceptable. > > And as to the OP, I have DCs running on MS VS2k5 R2 and have not had any > problems. In the situation you describe, Justin, it seems like performance > and cost would be the deciding factor. > > --- nme > > > > > From: Akomolafe, Deji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:44 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > > :) > > Interesting points, again. Did I remember to say that I am biased? I think > so. I expect that I'm going to catch some flaks for what I'm about to write, > but ..... > > These do not make VS and ESX "apples and oranges". VMotion, Host clustering. > Different nomenclature, different capabilities, same purpose, Resource > allocation guarantee, CPU Resource allocation weight. > > Superior Networking capabilities. Sure. Does VS have networking capabilities? > Of course. Does ESX integrate with AD as well as VS? Does it run on Windows? > Support software iSCSI? Live backup and Shadow Copy? (OK, if you count VCB > and its proxy). > > Administration - show of hands, quick - ESX or VS, which is easier and less > complex to deploy and administer? Which has easier and faster client > deployment option? > > I swear, I have NOT drunk any kool-aid, but I think people's perceptions of > the superiority of ESX over VS is largely driven by a combination of > historical trends, myths, marketing and the unavoidable "Winblows Sux" > mentality. Since we are on a Windows-centric list here, I do not mind > admitting that I do not subscribe to the notion that if it's not Windows, it > must be better than Windows. Mind you, Hunter, I am NOT implying that this is > where you are coming from, but the reason I asked you to enunciate the > reasoning behind your thinking was because I was hoping to hear something I > haven't heard before on this issue. > > VS certainly wasn't as feature-rich as ESX a couple of revs back. The gap is > considerably narrowed with what's currently going into VS and what ESX 3.0.1 > has today. Will VS catch and surpass ESX in a few months, no. Will it ever > catch up, maybe. But, today, if we factor in the cost overlay (in licensing, > hardware and administrative values), and discount our preconceived (or > received) notions of ESX superiority, and give VS (as of SP1 Beta 2) a fair > shake, one would be pleasantly surprised at how narrow the gap really is. > > To me, these 2 products are all bananas - one is a "just banana" and the > other is "organic banana". They are certainly not more "apple and orange" > than your convertible and my jalopy are "apple and orange". They are both > virtualization tools, and they each serve the same purpose. One is cheap > (like, FREE cheap, while giving you liberal Windows licensing terms and > flexibility to boot), the other is not. > > Now, I'm off to find my Teflon :) > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Coleman, Hunter > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > On the Virtual Infrastructure side: Moving running guests across hosts > (vmotion), the network configuration options, lower host overhead, grouping > hosts into resource pools and allowing guests to automatically migrate based > on allocation guarantees, 4-way SMP guests, 64-bit guests :-> > > Nothing wrong with Virtual Server, but I see it more on par with VMware > Server than ESX/Virtual Infrastructure. > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > Interesting points, Hunter. > > Not to engage in a holy war or something, but would you mind mentioning what > makes one of these Orange and the other Apple (the fruit)? No, don't mention > 64-bit Guest, thank you very much :)[1] > > > [1]<Grumbling> I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. </grumbling> > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Coleman, Hunter > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > IMHO, ESX/VM Infrastructure and Virtual Server are like apples and oranges. > Yes, they are both virtualization environments, but have vastly different > capabilities. VM Infrastructure has a much broader and deeper feature set > that does come with added cost and complexity. > > Regardless, in the context of the original question I'd be concerned about > the load Exchange is going to place on the host hardware. How many Exchange > users are in the 8 domains, and how many of these would potentially be > connecting to the alternate site? Are you going to have GC availability to > support Exchange? What other resources at the hotsite might be looking for > DC/GC services? > > I would also be careful about having a configuration at my hotsite that is > significantly different from my normal production environment. When things > have melted down to the point of failing over to the hotsite, it's not a good > time to be pulling out the manuals for your infrastructure because you don't > work with it day in and day out. > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > ESX (VMWare) is good - and pricey. And very strict as to hardware specs. And > complex to setup and administer. And, I could be wrong on this, NOT > (MS)-supported for virtualizing DCs. > > Virtual Server, on the other hand, is good, not pricey, less picky, more > supported (I believe it's actually validated) for DCs virtualization. Plus, > the liberal OS licensing scheme is very attractive to me. > > Yes, I know, VMWare rules the market. Yes, I am biased. > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Salandra, Justin A. > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 11:57 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > What would you recommend for the following situation. > > We are thinking of having a hot site where Exchange will be replicated to a > remote location. Since Exchange will be remote over the Internet, we will > need to have DC's for each domain available in that remote site. (This would > all be going across a VPN) > > I was thinking about placing 8 DC's on a VMWare Infrastructure 3 server > Enterprise edition. These DC's would really only be used in the event of a > disaster and people started connecting to Exchange up in the remote site. > > Is VMWare Infrastructure 3 good? What would you use? > > Justin A. Salandra > MCSE Windows 2000 & 2003 > Network and Technology Services Manager > Catholic Healthcare System > 646.505.3681 - office > 917.455.0110 - cell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
