This Announcement Comes To You From The Department of Virtualisation Disinformation

I have to admit, I have a big ol’ belly laugh on Wednesday as:

1. I hit a whole new high in blog hits for the second day running after my Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V vs vSphere 5.1 feature compare post
2. The childish reactions from vFanboys and VMware employees (including public facing VMware evangelists)
3. Eric Gray declaring that more IOPS for VMs is ba-ad, mmmkay!?!?

When the pro-vSphere arguments are the equivalent of “You suck!” then you know you can stick a fork in ‘em cos they are done.

I especially loved the comments that I should read someone else’s post on the same subject because it was “fair and balanced”.  I LMAO at that one because anyone who declares Hyper-V only fit for SME environments, despite the fact that it is more feature rich and more scalable, has well and truly drunk the beyond-the-sell-by-date Kool-Aid:

Let’s deal with some other objections that came my way:

• Balancing storage consumption for VMs: System Center PRO management packs more than deal with that.  In fact, one vendor’s MP gives us a hardware level view so that we can proactively balance work.  Next!
• A rich eco system for DR: Hyper-V Replica is hardware agnostic.  Clustered host, non clustered, SMB 3.0, DAS, iSCSI, SAS, HP, NetApp, Dell, EMC … it does not care.  If anything, it makes expensive partner solutions irrelevant, making DR more affordable for all.   Next!
• vMotion over long distance: What are you smokin’ there, cowboy? That’s just networking.  You still thinking Live Migration is unique to VMware?  Who says Crack doesn’t mess up your head?
• Support for metrocluster:  Like Nancy Reagan says: just say NO.  People have been building multi-site, geo metro, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-em clusters with Hyper-V for years, son.

This is the sort of crap that I’m talking about when I mention VMware FUD.  Either biased opinions or ignorance.  I can’t wait for the “You can’t run Linux on Hyper-V” argument

Oh – and no one wanted to debate the actual feature comparison where Hyper-V is clearly in the lead, offering more, doing more, and doing it with full support for the flexibility of Live Migration.

My counter arguments:

• How many VMs can you run in your cluster?  Only 3,000?  So you want me to have more clusters, more units of administration, and spend more time doing work?  Huh!
• What happens when you Live Migrate SR-IOV enabled VMs?  Oh you can’t!
• How many nodes in your public cloud solution?  Only 32?
• Your VMDK is only how big and has what fundamental break out security flaw?  Ssssh!  Don’t mention the war!
• ODX is only available in what version?
• Even the most basic of virtual switch security features require what?  Oh more spending, right.
• How small is your partner eco system to replace the VMware disposable virtual switch?  Does VMware not have enough faith in their own switch?  What good is it if it must be replaced to make it enterprise ready?
• How much CPU do you waste by enabling IPsec in your VMs?  I forgot, security isn’t important in that solution.  Who cares about the app anyway, eh?
• You can only do how many simultaneous vMotions on enterprise datacenter networking?  That’s not very good at all.  Sure, if more was bad, then why would Enterprise Plus bother with just 8?  Everyone loves waiting around for their 2 TB RAM ESXi hosts to pause so they can do some essential maintenance.  The risk of the h/w failure killing everything is a thrill ride like Russian Roulette.
• Software Defined Networking isn’t built in?  Didn’t everyone just declare this essential after VMware spent over $1 billion to play catch up with WS2012 Hyper-V?  Maybe cloud is just a fad, eh?
• The VMware Tools aren’t built into the Linux kernel?  Strange that, cos “evil community hatin'” Microsoft had the Hyper-V Linux Integration Services rubber stamped and included by Linus himself.
• What is the VMware service deployment mechanism?  Ahhh, VMware is all about servers.  I get ya now.  I prefer managing service and SLA.
• Wait … seriously …. how much do you want me to spend on vSphere?

VMware makes a good hypervisor.  It’s just now, WS2012 Hyper-V is more suited to the enterprise, and Microsoft gets it – the cloud is all about service, and not servers.  This era is about beyond virtualisation and the hypervisor.  Microsoft designed the solution for that.  Their experience in providing cloud services way before that term was coined really shows through, even more so now with their exposure to Azure.  It was clear which way things were going when I had the option to choose between Hyper-V and VMware back in 2008 after deploying/running a successful VMware deployment previously.  I cared more about app performance and availability than chocolate kettle doo-dads like FT, or their vSphere power optimisation feature which was included but not supported in production at the time.

Am I biased towards Hyper-V?  Absolutely, because I believe it and System Center are the superior solution.  Nuff said.

Go ahead punk, make me laugh.