Part two of this tip looked at technical specifications and support Now let's turn our attention to management and high availability.
Management
Does each option offer Web-based server management? A remote VM console? Scripting support? Let's find out.
Web-based server management
Let's look at whether or not it is possible to manage the VMM via a Web browser for each option.
|
|
Web-based server management
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes (with third party tools)
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3, VMware Server, Microsoft Virtual Server
2005 R2 and XenEnterprise all provide a Web-based server management
interface. Even though third-party tools exist that provide this
functionality to Xen 3.0, Xen 3.0 loses a point for not bundling
them.
Winner(s): VMware ESX
Server 2.5.3, VMware Server, Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2,
XenEnterprise
Loser(s): Xen 3.0
Remote VM console
Is it is possible to remotely view the VM in a console
connection?
|
|
Remote VM console
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
Even though all the solutions have
some sort of remote VM console, XenEnterprise wins because it ships
with the only remote console software that is compatible with OS X.
Winner(s): XenEnterprise
Loser(s): --
Scripting and API support
It's time to check whether or not the VMM is scriptable and/or exposes an API.
|
|
Scripting and API support
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
All of the VMMs have some sort of
scripting and API support. It is hard to call a winner in this
category, because scripting and API support is really just a means to
an end. VMware offers an extensible API for its products, and anyone
can program for Xen by virtue of it being open source. In the end,
they do not lose points because they do offer a COM interface, but
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 is left playing catch up to the
competition.
Winner(s): VMware ESX
Server 2.5.3, VMware Server, Xen 3.0, XenEnterprise
Loser(s): --
Template support
Does each VMM support the creation of VMs through
pre-configured templates?
|
|
Template support
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
At an additional cost through the use of VirtualCenter
|
|
VMware Server
|
Sort of –
through the use of Golden Masters
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Sort of
- through the use of Golden Masters, V2V, or a custom scripted
solution with the Microsoft Virtual Server Migration Tool (VSMT)
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3, in
conjunction with VirtualCenter, hands down, offers the most seamless
template deployment at this time. However, VirtualCenter is not
cheap. Although not as fully featured as VirtualCenter templates, Xen
3.0 and XenEnterprise can take advantage of the Xen-tools' templating
capabilities. XenEnterprise even comes with its own type of template
called XGT. At the moment though, Windows is not supported by
Xen-tools or the XGT format. Because there is not a free, polished
product, there is no winner.
Winner(s): --
Loser(s): --
High availability
How well does each solution support high availability?
NIC teaming
This part examines whether or not it is possible to provide redundant network
infrastructure by teaming several physical NICs and presenting a
single logical NIC.
|
|
NIC teaming
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes (through
host OS)
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes (through
host OS)
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes (through control OS)
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes (through
control OS)
|
All the VMM solutions support NIC
teaming / bonding.
Winner(s): All
Loser(s): --
VM clustering
This part looks at whether or not the VMM allows for clustering inside VMs, such as
Microsoft Clustering.
|
|
VM clustering
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes (across physical hosts)
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes (on a
single physical host)
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes (on a
single physical host)
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Only guest Linux clustering for now
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Only guest
Linux clustering for now
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Xen
and VMware Server tie for the loss because they have deficiencies in
this area. Although nothing prevents VMware from enabling VMware
Server with the same support of VM clustering that ESX has, it will
not, because that is one of the features that sets ESX apart from its
free counterpart. Xen stands the best chance of catching up to ESX's
VM clustering support, but for now, ESX wins.
Winner(s): VMware ESX
Server 2.5.3
Loser(s): VMware Server,
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Xen 3.0, XenEnterprise
Network storage connectivity (SAN)
Let's check whether or not the VM images can be stored on a network attached
storage device such as a SAN.
|
|
Network storage connectivity (SAN)
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes (through
host OS)
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes (through
host OS)
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes (through control OS)
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes (through
control OS)
|
All the VMM solutions support network
storage connectivity.
Winner(s): All
Loser(s): --
Host VM migration capability
Does the VMM supports transitioning a running VM to
another physical host without downtime?
|
|
Hot VM migration capability
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
No
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
No
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
This used to be one of the big reasons
to use ESX, but Xen now includes free support for the same feature
called live relocation. Since live relocation is free Xen would win
in a walk if live relocation supported Windows VMs, but it does not.
Until then there is no winner since all solutions are lacking, either
because of price or because of feature absence.
Winner(s): --
Loser(s): VMware Server,
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
Now we've looked at management features and high availability. Part four will conclude with a look at additional features and a wrapup of our comparison.
