Now for the final part of our comparison, a look at additional features. Part one covered the criteria for our evaluation and the
administrative features. Part two covered technical specifications and support, and
part three covered management and high availability. Part four also contains a wrapup and a list of sources for this article for your reading pleasure.
Additional features
Let's compare our five options on a few more features.
Available physical-to-virtual (P2V) solution
This part checks whether or not an available P2V software package
works with the VMM to transform physical servers into VMs.
|
|
Available physical-to-virtual (P2V) solution
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
Yes
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Yes
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
Yes
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
Yes
|
VMware provides a P2V tool, but at
cost. Microsoft provides a free one, but it does not P2V Linux.
Third-party tools can provide this functionality for Xen 3.0, and
XenEnterprise provides this feature, but at cost. Because all of the
solutions are pay-for or limited, there is no winner.
Winner(s): --
Loser(s): --
Integrated monitoring solution
Does the VMM comes with an integrated monitoring
solution?
|
|
Integrated monitoring solution
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
No
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
No
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
No
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
No
|
All of the VMM solutions include
integrated monitoring to some extent.
Winner(s): VMware ESX
Server 2.5.3, VMware Server, Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Xen
3.0, XenEnterprise
Loser(s): --
Integrated backup solution
Let's look at whether or not the VMM comes with an integrated backup solution.
|
|
Integrated backup solution
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
Yes
|
|
VMware Server
|
No
|
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
No
|
|
Xen 3.0
|
No
|
|
XenEnterprise
|
No
|
VMware ESX 2.5.3 Server provides backup scripts of the box, and
for this it scores a point. Backups would not be at all difficult to
configure for the other solutions, so they lose points because there
is no out-of-the-box backup functionality.
Winner(s): VMware ESX
Server 2.5.3
Loser(s): VMware Server,
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2, Xen 3.0, XenEnterprise
Summary
And the wins vs losses stack up like this:
|
|
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3
|
VMware Server
|
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2
|
Xen 3.0
|
XenEnterprise
|
|
Administrative
|
1 to 1
|
1 to 0
|
1 to 0
|
3 to 0
|
2 to 1
|
|
Technical Specifications
|
3 to 3
|
3 to 3
|
3 to 3
|
3 to 2
|
4 to 1
|
|
Support
|
3 to 0
|
1 to 0
|
0 to 3
|
2 to 0
|
2 to 0
|
|
Management
|
2 to 0
|
2 to 0
|
1 to 0
|
1 to 1
|
3 to 0
|
|
High Availability
|
3 to 0
|
2 to 2
|
2 to 2
|
2 to 1
|
2 to 1
|
|
Additional Features
|
2 to 0
|
1 to 1
|
1 to 1
|
1 to 1
|
1 to 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
14 to 4
|
10 to 6
|
7 to 9
|
13 to 5
|
14 to 4
|
Winner(s): VMware ESX Server 2.5.3, XenEnterprise
I think what is the most interesting about the results is not that
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3 and XenEnterprise tied for the win, but in
fact how close Xen 3.0 came to winning. With its community support,
Xen 3.0 may end up eclipsing all other virtualization solutions in
the not too distant future. Right now, however, I still recommend
VMware ESX Server 2.5.3, because VMware has a proven track record
when it comes to server virtualization. While XenSource has
tremendous industry support, it has not withstood the test of time
just yet. But who knows what the next year will bring?
Sources and further information
