This 7 page article on InfoWorld makes for an interesting read. And it appears to me that the author was doing his best to be fair when comparing Hyper-V, XenServer, vSphere, and RedHat. In the end, he appears to favour vSphere slightly more than Hyper-V for two reasons:
- Simplicity of set up
I will concede on point #1. I’ve done vSphere and, you may not have noticed, I am a wee bit of a Hyper-V fan. When it comes to setup, vSphere is easier to set up, mainly because it is a virtualisation platform and nothing else.
On the management side, if you look 100% at the virtualisation slice of the pie, then you might concede that vSphere has the tiniest of an edge. The author picked on Microsoft adding complexity to the management setup by using several tools.
Let me ask you a question: Why do businesses have IT? Is it so they can own servers, switches, routers, disks, and firewalls? Or is it because they want applications to enable the business to carry out operations and make profit? Hopefully it is the latter … otherwise you work for a soon-to-be dot.bomb.
Microsoft have observed why business have IT and have developed their management stack to cater for the entire computing stack, not just virtualisation. I’ve bleated on about that over and over so I’ll leave that there.
As a MS partner, I like Hyper-V because it brings the possibility of selling other licenses and services such as enterprise monitoring, backup, automation, and so on. My relationship with the customer does not end after I sell some servers/storage and some virtualisation licenses.
Give the report a read for yourself. Interestingly, he seems to reckon all the solutions are excellent.