We've done fairly extensive testing of Exchange, SQL Server and MS CRM on Hyper-V. This is with Netapp SANs and Sun's X4600 (8 dual core CPUs, 96 GB of RAM), X6250 and X6220 boxes. For Exchange, we simulated 10k, 20k and 50k mailbox configurations (with up to 1TB of storage) using Jetstress and IOMeter. For CRM we tested a 3 tier configuration with 6000 users etc. This took about 3-4 months of testing to produce. I believe we have a whitepaper coming out soon (if not already) - I'll have a look for it when I get back from holidays. The difference between native hardware and Hyper-V can be only 10-20% or so. ESX isn't going to give you noticeably better raw performance. Where ESX has the advantage is the extra functionality (like VMotion).
Cheers Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin > Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2008 12:47 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWARE to Hyper-V and HAL types > > Strange > > I tried both. On a pair of Dell 1950's with 16gig of memory sharing an > Openfiler San, (Powervault sc220s). At most I had 6 W2K3 VMs with 2 GB memory > running on the HyperV. With ESXi I ran out of space on the LUN after 13 W2K3 > VM's. Performance was fine on both. The benefit of being able to upgrade to > get VMotion was also a mitigating fact. > > S > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:41 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWARE to Hyper-V and HAL types > > Really? We did a basic test on one of our servers, the free ESX against Hyper- > V and the general consensus was that the Hyper-V one is quicker. Besides we > love all things MS here. Saying that I haven't run any definitive tests > against the two, but the MS offering certainly did feel quicker when the chaps > here sat in front of the VMs. > > Olly > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin > Sent: 08 December 2008 13:35 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: VMWARE to Hyper-V and HAL types > > You should have stuck with VMWare....ESXi (Also Free), is far superior to > HyperV Beta...And I'm a Microsoft guy...HyperV won't catch up for a good few > years yet. > > If you think HyperV is fast, ESXi will blow you away. > > S > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:29 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: VMWARE to Hyper-V and HAL types > > Hi chaps, > > I'm looking at moving our VMWare based VMs to our new Hyper-V based servers. > New VMs are working a treat, and certainly Hyper-V seems far more responsive > than our VMWare based setup. However existing VMWare based VMs are proving an > issue. > > While the VM's have been imported to Hyper-V without any problems it would > appear that the HAL of the VMWare VMs have all been set to 'Standard PC' at > some point during the installation of the guest OS (all Windows 2003). In > order to install the Hyper-V tools we need to be running a ACPI based HAL. > > My question is this; is there a way in Windows 2003 to move from a Standard PC > based HAL to an ACPI based HAL ? I know that MS don't support it (at least > from what i can see on the web), but is there a way to hack a solution to it ? > The only option we have at the moment is to re-install the guest OS's but that > would mean a lot of work and possibly re-config of the apps running on them. > > Olly ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
