Exploring Hyper-V from a VMware User's Perspective
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Welcome to our third video, diving deep into VMware alternatives for your #homelab and your business. In this video, I boldly step into the world of Microsoft Hyper-V to uncover how it compares to VMware ESXi and evaluate it as a replacement from a VMware user's perspective. It's a long video, and a lot of planning, learning, and effort went into it, so let us know what you think!
*GET SOCIAL AND MORE WITH US HERE!*
Get help with your Homelab, ask questions, and chat with us!
🎮 / discord
Subscribe and follow us on all the socials, would ya?
📸 / 2guystek
💻 / 2guystek
Find all things 2GT on our website!
🌍 2guystek.tv/
More of a podcast kinda person? Check out our Podcast here:
🎙️ www.buzzsprout.com/1852562
Support us through the CZcams Membership program! Becoming a member gets you priority comments, special emojis, and helps us make videos!
😁 www.youtube.com/@2GuysTek/mem...
*TIMESTAMPS!*
0:00 Introduction
1:06 The history of Hyper-V
3:31 Hyper-V Feature Comparison
8:46 Comparing consoles
10:20 Comparing GUIs ESXi
12:17 Comparing GUIs Hyper-V
19:21 VM Management in Hyper-V
22:35 Can Hyper-V replace ESXi?
24:09 What I don't like about Hyper-V
27:06 Closing! - Věda a technologie
13 years of my IT career were in managed services. Hyper-V was pretty popular for our smaller clients and helped clients save cost by only having to have one well configured server running as their DC and the rest as VMs. It worked fine. It did its job and it was stable and reliable. So for those small clients, it was a good solution.
Hyper-V supports Thick Provisioning just fine when creating the virtual disk, it just doesn't give the option when setting up a new VM and you use that window to specify the size. If you create a new virtual disk stand alone you can totally thick provision it.
The biggest issue we run into on a daily basis is in VMware we can easily add a USB Controller and map any USB device through to a VM, but in Hyper-V you cannot pass through just any USB device. You can set an external hard drive to "Offline" and pass through the physical hard drive, but if you have a USB security key that a program living inside a VM requires, then you're looking at a product like USB Network Gate and sharing it from the host or another device.
USB is not allowed by security means. Solutions like SEH USB network appliance, as an example.
_"but in Hyper-V you cannot pass through just any USB device"_
There is definitely client-side USB passthrough support.
Enable enhanced session mode
Connect using standard VMconnect (right-click VM, click Connect)
Select Local Resources tab, then click "More" button
Select the USB drive(s) you wish to pass through.
The thing I like with Hyper-V is that it runs on my win10 laptop and is good to test various things without my sysadmins knowing :3 V-switch are not bad at all.
Hyper-V on a "simple" win10/Win11 pro host is understated in my opinion.
I can get behind that, it's really the only place I see value for Hyper-V.
Well, you are better using Virtualbox instead of Hyper-v as the later is more of a Type 1.5 hypervisor than a true Type 1. It has too many gotchas for the complexity is brings forth.
I've used HyperV in my homelab for quite some time now. Mainly due to issues with ESXi not liking my hardware and I moved away as it was just eating through disks for fun - I didn't have sever-grade hardware and ESXi just constantly (as in every few months) fell over due to disks failing which brought down ESXi and so, after a few lost VMs I gave up and went with HyperV
The lack of a web GUI is not a deal breaker for me as I find that I can manage most functions well enough from the Console and Powershell.
A quick note is that Hyper-V has 3 options for Disk sizes - Fixed Size (Thick), Dynamically expanding (Thin) and Differencing (mainly used with Checkpoints)
Another feature I like with HyperV is that VHDX's can be mounted directly into Windows - meaning it is a lot easier to copy files to and from a virtual disk when not attached to a VM
The EOL of the "free" version of Hyper-V is an issue, but from my own experience with ESXi - I am firmly in the HyperV camp now.
WAC (Windows Admin Center), take a look.
@@Korn45678 Oh yeah I use that as well - mainly for performance stats etc - just forgot to add it in 🙂
There is a "vCenter equivalent" - System Center Virtual Machine Manager, often referred to SCVMM. ALL base functionality for a virtual infrastructure can be handled through Failover Cluster Manager and most through Windows Admin Center, though templating without SCVMM requires manual template creation, sysprepping, copying and creation processes.
I evaluated SCVMM several times over the last ten years and it was always absolutely terrible. slow and overly complicated, it was never a consideration vs just about anything else. I am genuinely curious what life is like for any large SCVMM deployments out there...
@@blanketwodahs6741 I've used SCVMM a lot over the years. It's stable and capable, but yes, very complex. The most common cause of issues in it though is user-caused; admins jump into hyper-v manager or failover cluster manager and make changes, and SCVMM isn't good about detection of those things if they weren't done in SCVMM.
While a little more complicated then vCenter, SCVMM was just a feature rich. VCP and MS Virtual Certified here. What was nice about SCVMM was being able to add an ESXi host into that SCVMM infrastructure.
@@datorr7470 *laugh* Yeah... built that way by MS to make it easy to convert from VMware to Hyper-V. :) The reality of it is this: for a VMware user, SCVMM is an easy user experience. For a VMware implementor, SCVMM is more complex, but just as feature rich. Windows as a HyperVisor is not as efficient and stable as ESXi, end of story.... but, as long as it's properly designed, updates are maintained (and yes, Automated Cluster Aware Updating is the way to go), and users are encouraged to never use Hyper-V Manager or Failover Cluster Manager, SCVMM is completely viable and a good solution. Further, of all of the solutions being discussed in this and other youtube channels, Microsoft has (1) the only truly 24x7x365 support option, (2) by far the widest available community of resources between Microsoft Support, a billion and one Microsoft partners, and nearly every MSP under the sun, and (3) in most cases, people with virtual infrastructure already own the Windows Server standard or datacenter licensing that they will require to do Hyper-V; SCVMM is about the same cost as vCenter. Microsoft makes the most sense in the business world if VMware isn't in the picture, and all the rest (though very, very cool) are also-rans or maybe someday-will-run. I'm really big on open source, and personally am moving most of my lab infra over to a combo of Proxmox and xcp-ng, but using one of the open source solutions for most businesses means hiring out the design/build and having someone or some company on contract for support because the options for direct call-up and ask for help to the vendors is limited at best.
I came here to say the same thing, and the difference between scvmm and vcenter is that when you have scvmm you get all the features, they don't nickle and dime you for every feature
I'm in the middle of moving from VMWare to Hyper-V at our office. I have had no problems with it so far, and if anything it's been easier to setup and configure with more features out of the box than VMWare. I have a cluster setup and can live migrate between hosts with no extra cost. I've been using VMWare for 2 decades for reference.
I am in the same boat. I have had wonderful experiences with Hyper-V. And, I can't help but feel that this review was conducted by someone who hasn't had to rebuild their vcenter instance for a third time because it has once again randomly corrupted and won't boot.
did you create an external AD/DNS server ? seem to be a requirement in case of total restart
@@GreywolfZX42 At least VCenter is easier to deploy than it was back in version 5.5, lol.
@@MarcoTonoli Not sure what you mean. Active Directory is required for the clustering, but I don't know of any other requirements.
@@brett_rose seem a requirement to start from zero a cluster. Is not true (or not anymore) ?
To run windows on vmware, you also need a datacenter Windows license plus vmware licence...due to live migration..
While in hyperv, you dont need vmware licence..
It was costing us 280 in local currency and now its costing us 1670 in local currency..
Okay... A lot to unpack here. I'll try to summarize though.
Preface: I am vmware (6) certified bu thave been running Hyper-V and now SCVMM at an Enterprise for the last 5 years. Yes, I chose to work somewhere with a massive hyper-v presence. However, I am actively moving my Datacenter and the associated DR to VMWare Vsphere+ because of a laundry list of issues, complaints and utterly horrible approach Microsoft has had towards Hyper-V. My ROBO locations I'm - for now - leaving hyper-v simply because for a stand alone host, Hyper-v is "Fine" - not great, and I'd prefer them under one vCenter - but it's 'included' in the cost so it is what it is; and most of my issues are around clustering and performance issues which are Datacenter specific.
The three main things I want to address on this video are SCVMM/WAC, Performance, and Microsoft's approach.
Starting with Microsoft's Approach: They don't care about you. Not saying Broadcom does, but Microsoft doesn't even offer training for SCVMM/Hyper-V, and they don't want you to keep things on premise - they want you in Azure. All of their push is to get everyone to move everything into Azure. Not the cloud, not IaaS, not Virtual Colo - Azure. Want support? GLHF - it's either Unified Support (aka Premier support re-branded) which costs a LOT of money - or you deal with a nightmare of a time trying to get help even if you pay SA. On Premise enhancements? Nope - they haven't updated any core functionality of on premise systems in years and won't unless it specifically ties in with enhancing their ability to get you into Azure. Period. Further proof? What did they release with 2022: Oh yeah, Windows Server Datacenter: Azure Edition. An on-premise install of Hyper-V with a tighter integration to Azure. What's that? Broadcom is only in it for the money? What's that? You don't like their subscriptions? Sure, go to microsoft and pay a capex for the software and opex for SA, and a huge opex for Unified Support -- but what's that? You don't actually get EVERYTHING when you buy that? No - because they want you to also pay for Azure. Azure update manager, Azure Monitor (vastly better than SCOM), Azure Arc, Azure Money, Azure Cloudy Days, Azure owns your soul.
Next up is SCVMM/WAC: SCVMM is "Required" if you want anything close to vCenter, but it's not vCenter by a long shot. Zero training available so good luck even figuring it out, because it's not intuitive and the documentation on it is horrible. SCVMM is also not even the source of truth - nor can it do everything once integrated with Hyper-V or clusters - it's at best a wrapper for powershell commands, and buggy on top of it. As a small example: When telling it to remove a node from a cluster, it looked at the underlying storage API it is 'certified' to work with, and instead of removing the connections to that node from the SAN, it just ripped out the connections of all disks to all nodes in the cluster. Why? Because it's Microsoft and it doesn't make sense. Another example: Patching - SCVMM can integrate with WSUS, but you can't actually integrate it with SCCM (which is how you would normally patch 'windows' machines in a large environment) - and I have found SCVMM patching to be buggy to an extreme. Sometimes it puts servers into maintenance mode, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it patches, sometimes it just spins. Cluster Aware Updating is better, but at that point why would you pay for SCVMM --- because SCVMM isn't free, you have to pay for System Center licensing for all your hosts/VMs to use it.
WAC/Windows Admin Center is somewhat better but unpolished and doesn't have feature-parity anywhere with anything. However I have it on good authority that anything MMC related (i.e. hyper-v manager) is not having ANY R&D put into it and is going to be phased out; remember our Azure conversation? Yeah, they want you to get used to systems they can easily move to Azure; indeed WAC has tight integration with Azure.
Finally, Performance: Oh boy. I'll keep this one brief: It's not feature complete compared to VMWare. I know because I'm going from top of the line R650 Dell servers running Hyper-V on 2x32gb FC between two PCI cards (each on a socket so 100% ideal bandwidth) connecting to NVME SANs, to actually a generation older Intel Chipset servers with 2x32gb on a single PCI card - and I in real world situation and benchmarks have seen significant performance improvements of the VMs especially SQL VMs, despite identical or possibly lower hardware. The Hyper-V environment even went through a 'validation' with a Microsoft SME (not 3rd party a literal Microsoft SCVMM/Hyper-V Engineer who has written books on Microsoft software) to ensure everything was tuned tweaked and optimized; heck we even found a CSV(VMFS) setting that they recommended was in fact wrong, and we got performance increases on hyper-v by disabling it.
I could probably record an entire half hour video on the failings of Hyper-V and SCVMM. I legitimately am sad to see so many people going to Hyper-V with their 100s or 1000s of servers - they are going to find the grass is not always greener.
Now --- does this excuse Broadcom? NO. I am ANGRY at how Broadcom is handling the entire situation, and I 100% believe that they are only looking for a profit; I also know that VMWare remains the absolute best hypervisor out there, and I will protest even while running it.
I did not in fact, summarize. Oops.
I'm in somewhat of a similar boat, in that I work at a large enterprise (huge steel mill with 5000 employees, a few hundred server VM's and a few thousand VDI's) that runs about 90% of their infrastructure on Hyper-V. The above 'summary' is beautifully accurate. It is so familiar that I'm kind of wondering if you aren't one of my co-workers. Hyper-V is a nightmare to manage and keep running smoothly, at least at a large scale. And it's even worse when it doesn't run smoothly and you have to go figure out why that is. Luckily I'm a systems engineer, not an admin, so I don't have to do much Hyper-V admin work but still, it causes me a headache at least once a week. But "hey", says management, "it's cheaper than VMware!" But not really of course, if you count the cost of the downtimes (production is 24/7) that were caused by the infrastructure being wonky, temperamental and oftentimes completely opaque
To top it all off, right when--after a very long, hard and drawn-out struggle--I had succeeded in convincing upper management to start on the path towards VMware, the POC was deployed, evaluated and approved, the capex was subsequently approved and the first offers from partners were coming in, the Broadcom debacle crashed (read: "obliterated") the party. So now they've gotten cold feet (which I somewhat understand) and want to remain with Hyper-V (which is madness) because it will cost a lot more than envisioned. Yes, I've begun quietly looking around for other work, and I can confidently say that it's Hyper-V which made me bolt for the door
I really think that Broadcom is planning to do a short- to medium-term cash grab and is counting on VMware not surviving in the long term. If you cut out 75% of your customers, people entering the IT world now and in the future will have much less incentive to specialize in VMware products because there is much less work to go around, which will cause a dramatic drop in the amount of qualified personnel in the long-term, which in turn will make it harder and harder for the remaining 25% of customers to find qualified personnel themselves, after more and more of their current VMware-specialized personnel retire. I think in the long-term this is really going to hurt VMware much more than help it but we'll see, it's just a hypothesis of course. To say that I was about to embark on the path towards VCP-DCV, sigh. Now I'm not so sure whether that is in fact still feasible, likely not. We'll see, first to find other work. "Which hypervisor platform are you running?" will be a determining factor, or rather THE determining factor
Brilliantly written! I appreciate the personal experience , thank you for sharing!
man, you have a lot on your heart! I can feel through your big summarize, you did suffer with Hyper-V !
In my workplace, we work with esxi with or without vcenter + Hyper-V with or without failed over cluster and I don't have a preference (I love those 2 hypervisors). We have esxi and Hyper-V host who run for years without a single intervention except when we have some pizza party because some guys decide to test the ups and things goes sideways.
With Microsoft product, you have to use Microsoft product and like many companies, they make the strict minimum when the functionality is free. When you want more you have to pay (example: Microsoft scom, scvmm ...). SCVMM, I did use it a couple time but what can i say, it better to live without. For me, the less you put on your system, the better you live with.
With esxi, I regret when they crash the old interface VMware infrastructure and like Microsoft if you want more functionality you have to pay. But it's sad Broadcom decide to crash esxi free version like Microsoft because at the end, our choice for free hypervisors fade away.
@@2GuysTek I appreciate your approach all the same. The bottom line is many people are not sure what to do, and you're at least trying to break down the options in as unbiased a way as possible. I don't fault you for not being an expert at hyper-v, and did a good job of laying it out high level.
As someone who has professionally been a Windows engineer and later a VMWare engineer, I agree with your analysis almost completely. I never understood why Microsoft didn't come up with a specific vCenter-esque system to manage Hyper-V. SCVMM never seemed like a good replacement to me (really focusing on management + automation instead of just management and became too complicated because of it), and Windows Admin Center is really more of remote Windows manager than a true VM platform.
A couple things to note, however, is that Windows Admin Center will now allow you to add cluster roles and configure clusters completely within the latest version of WAC. That makes it better, but still too Windows-focused in my mind for a vCenter replacement.
Likewise, Microsoft is promoting Azure Stack as their new on-prem answer to vCenter and as a quasi-replacement for SCVMM. I know this because the multi-national corp I worked for recently had decided to go the Hyper-V + Azure stack as the internal replacement for ESXi + vCenter due to Broadcom.
I switched from VMWare years ago (2014), because the writing was already on the wall. KVM on Linux. Debian isn’t going to stab me in the back.
shouldnt you be able to use vcenter in your comparisons since on the new cost structure everything comes with a copy of vcenter?
I don't like Hyper-V but it does work in small business since they're running windows. But they do have Azure HCI stack and Windows Admin Center.
If you’re a windows shop only, and you have a copy of Enterprise, it makes sense.
@2guystek, you might like to try to give Windows Admin Center and mslab a try addition looking into Dell GEOS Azure Stack HCI HOL.
This can deploy everything nearly automated via the console you were missing.
Hyper-V is still there because it is the base of Azure and Azure Stack HCI. For Microsoft it does not matter that the interface is trash, just use the Azure Portal (you are supposed to go into cloud anyway from their perspective). Because you started this series, what about OpenStack? :)
And it's also the base of Windows Server HCI (S2D).
When will the NUTANIX comparison be released?
I have only ever used Hyper-V in a workstation setting, but here are some of my takes.
The performance is, as with all modern hardware-assisted hypervisors, good.
The device emulation is somewhat limited. No generic 3D accelerated graphics adapter. 2nd gen VMs require the use of paravirtual network and SCSI interfaces. Mouse support for fBSD doesn't work.
There are some design choices that I find inconvenient. Notably the memory allocation policy. Hyper-V would allocate the maximum amount configured for the VM the moment the guest boots up. ESXi and KVM both only allocate the amount actually used by the guest. The way Hyper-V does it can be quite annoying if you are also doing things on the host OS. There is a memory ballooning feature, but doesn't seem to work quite right with Linux guests (the memory allocation inflates and doesn't shrink back)
Networking is very intuitive. Unlike in Linux, you can actually make a virtual switch inaccessible to the host OS, making it possible to expose guests to an external network without also exposing the host. Great if you want to run a router in your virtual environment.
There are quite a bit of advanced features hiding in Hyper-V. There's a GPU partitioning feature that does not require specialized hardware (!). It also supports runtime encrypted guests on both Intel and AMD processors, notable because the Linux hypervisor stack only seems to have support for AMD SEV.
The Hyper-V MMC is painfully outdated. It still has the Windows 7 aesthetics, and a number of recent features (including the two I mentioned above) are not made available in the MMC, only PowerShell.
No idea what cluster management looks like.
Hyper-V on a single host is okay, but management quickly becomes ugly once you start to cluster your hosts.
Having to interact with three different management interfaces (Hyper-V-Manager, Failovercluster-Manager and PowerShell for certain features, although you can manage everything entirely through PowerShell if you want) in order to perform a cluster bootstrap is just painful.
If you then want to use SCVMM, that's another layer on top complicating things. Sure, once it's up and running you can accomplish most tasks through SCVMM (more than you can with either of the other management options actually), but there's a whole layer of additional concepts like logical switches, networks etc. layered on top. It's definitely very feature-rich, but it's a pain in the ass to manage.
Also, even with SCVMM 2022, the interface looks like they stopped development when Windows 7 was new in every way. The design, the entire UX... It's painful.
Windows Admin Center still has gaps, if there were not any you can easily drop MMCs.
actualy there is Switch Embedded Teaming, but you need to configure it with powershell
Not necessarily. There is Windows Admin Center, and Network ATC with Azure Stack HCI 22H2 + / Windows Server 2025, making it a no brainer.
Cool series so far. I just ended up setting up nutanix for my homelab as that is what we use at work
AWWW yeah!!
haven't even pressed play yet and you're already getting 😘
The mmc flavoured console is pretty much deprecated, you should be looking at using WAC, or SCVMM... Throw PowerShell on top of that and it's quite capable. It's no vCenter, but it's still a nice option if you're primarily a Windows\Linux environment.
Microsoft strongly recommends Core to be used for Hyper-V servers. They make it easy to manage with admin center
The MMC console is Microsoft's console window, if you are managing more than 1 or 2 hosts you should use WAC or Failover cluster manager
Finally videos from someone who uses the products. The only thing I wished you covered in all series (Proxmox, NG, and now HyperV) is how hard it is to clean tag the MGMT interface l, that is sooooo easy via ESXi via the console you showed off that's nothing more then a checkbox and textbox to define the VLAN ID.
Remember you can run Hyper-V on nano which is very light weight as well. Last time I used it was in 2016, and it was around 700 meg. I am sure it is bigger but couldn't be much more. Nano is a great OS if you want to be very small. It works for file server, DNS, DHCP. The only thing it won't work for is AD because it uses a DB, which is a shame. It takes about 3 seconds to load a Nano.
This sku is no longer. Windows Server Core installation is the bare minimum.
Another thing to note for homelabbers. Windows 10 gets Hyper-V as well
To reminde you Hyper V core and Windows server both have option of Web based Gui Management called Windows Admin Center. Which need to installed to manage as single host or cluster.
I'm using Hyper-V since Server 2008 and used ESXi for a few years too. My take on this: You should only take Hyper-V into consuderation if you are using Microsoft OS and products on most of your VMs anyway. If you do then you have probably a skill in PowerShell too. Don' t believe the myth you can manage everything with a GUI. Advanced configuration is only possible with PS. Hyper-V Server 2022 can be done in the same way as the free Hyper-V Server 2019 as the GUI is optional. All GUI management apps can be used remotely. If you are a Linux guy you better use a solution from that world. Remark: You can do thick provisioning for virtual hd if you want.
17:20 There's a number of cases with license's locked to MAC addresses that I've had to set a static MAC on the VM so that it changing for various reasons doesn't cause application issues. It's silly really as this was a type of copy protection decades ago, easy defeated now but painful for actual legitimate production systems. As I've explained many times, the people that want to pirate it have a cracked version anyway, these types of things only inconvenience the paying customer.
I usually say I do not want to use Hyper-Ventilate. and that is what it looked like you did when talking about the GUI :)
It's just odd he missed to show Windows Admin Center completely.
Focusing on MMC which are out of development for a half decade doesn't help.
You're running BeOS?? Oh man, I loved that one. The error's and warnings were awesome. Trying to get an SB AWE64 running on BeOS "Your computer doesn't have any audio devices attached..... Bummer"
YES! I LOVED IT TOO! Here’s what I’m running: www.haiku-os.org/
From 20 years of Vmware and fibre channel experience (yes even in 2024!) its quite daunting to think about moving to Hyper-V but it will be the bean counters that make this decision not myself. I'm hoping they find plenty of coins for VMware but if not I feel I'll be learning a lot more on Hyper-V soon.
have they considered the price of 0 beans with proxmox?
@@BattousaiHBr Thanks for the feedback, nah they would want to go with the Microsoft solution as we have a very large agreement with them anyway. It come up again today in discussion, I'm going to be moving several hundred VM's to Hyper-V from VMware before long I think.
Don't forget to configure FC correctly, incl. Storage Timeouts.
It's sad Microsoft dropped development of FC / iSCSI Integration, same as Nutanix focusing on HCI fully.
Would you try to compare with TrueNAS Scale too?
Just don't. TN Scale is not a HV platform. Do it you must, but don't any other time.
Running bare Linux with cockpit to manage ZFS and VMs on the other hand is totally an option imho. In small shops I mean. Cockpit just uses libvirt under the hood which means you can live migrate and use the GUI on Linux to interact with it directly
@@LampJustin What? TN Scale is not a hypervisor platform? Under which rock are you living man? It's an hyper-converged platform, so yes, it is an system to host VMs like any other out there.
@@Traumatree I've used it, it is not good
Cool comparisson! Have worked quite a bit with hyper-v, and also started to do vm-ware more. Was thinking of getting certified in it, till the broadcom thing....
From my perspective: I think hyper-v is a bit easier when you already know windows. You don't see that many options in the gui, but that can also be a good thing. So for environments up untill lets say two hosts and 20 vm's, I would say hyper-v is easier. After that vmware gets benefits. For large environments, I feel vmware is a bit more robust.
For small environments hyper-v works very well. For home use the implementation of hyper-v on Windows 11 works very well. You can do cool things like placing a firewall vm before your windows os. So if you only have one computer, and you want to experiment a bit, hyper-v is a great option. I have read that linux vm's and openbsd etc, are not supported. But I did not run into any problem with that so far.
Now it would be awesome to have kind of a final round comparison of Proxmox next to Xcp-ng on your actual "doing things in it" pov ✌️
After this is all said and done, that will be a video we create!
You should do one on Nutanix CE. I switched back to ESXi hypervisor after having issues with Nested virtualization with Proxmox. I had some weird corks with Vms esp Linux giving me CPU watchdog bugs. For now ESXi will still remain as my bare-metal hypervisor while I run Proxmox, Hyper-V, Nutanix CE and XCP-NG nested inside of ESXi for testing purposes all on one physical server.
Exactly.! I was wondering why you guys never mentioned Nutanix when you were doing the video on Proxmox and xcp-ng.. Not a mention about Nutanix and how it fits with post-ESXi solutions.
Nutanix is what VMware will become. I used it and "contact nutanix support" is everywhere. Forum and kb with no answers. so what is the point to make a video about them?
@@denidurrell9425Nutanix is a Hyperconverged system (the most costly) that is out of reach of small & medium businesses, so it it not an really an option to showcase here.
There absolutely is a vCenter equivalent. It's just as powerful as vCenter albeit a lot more clunky
I run hyper-v with Acronis cloud manager on the front end. I agree that the build in gui is painful but it’s free with the hypervisor so that’s why I paid for a 3rd party gui. All the other hypervisors outside of VMware have either support issues or not a large pool of people know them when you need to hire an admin.
What do you use for third party GUI Hyper-V management?
@@thakat007 Acronis cloud manager
Are you going to do Nutanix comparison?
Anyone using Open Stack as home system - nova for compute, cinder for storage etc. Was interested in the days when it was there with Citrix XenServer and Hyper-V just getting started, but VMWARE always was market lead and a good roadmap - though arrogant about pricing the days of looking to charge based on vRAM was the start of its decline!
The vCenter equivalent is Windows Admin Center, you mention in the video its introduction, but then forget about it when discussing how Hyper-V is managed.
WAC is a web portal and can be managed in a similar way to vCenter.
I am(was?) a VMware admin and I managed a few hyper-v clusters on 2012 and 2016. I hate them for the same you mentioned. If you have clusters you have to use both the Failover Cluster Manager and Hyper-V manager. Some funcions are available in one and other funcions are in another. We have scvvm at the end, but that is a mess. They are not able to develop a decent gui.
Im not a fan of the MS bloat, but in a business environment, Hyper-V can be a safer choice than some mutt and jeff thing downloaded from the Internet. I like the fact that most Hyper-V features work without the server being joined to a domain. I run multiple Linux workloads on HV, even features like replication and the shutdown button work flawlessly.
I normaly use HyperV on EPYC system and VMWare only on Intel Xeon. i feel it works better that way not sure why I kinda like HyperV now days since Server 2022 release.
I think is time for oVirt(Red Hat Virtualisation) open source product.
It would be nice to see a comparison of VMware to Azure and AWS. Lots of small to medium businesses might be better served by moving to one of the public cloud offerings and could use this as the opportunity to make the jump. I've been a VMware admin for 14+ years and I know we are really taking a long hard look at moving to the public cloud and not having to pay down the large capital expense for Server / Storage / Network hardware every 5-7 years.
For those that want to see what coming next for hyper-v, then this short video (I have time stamped it) for new Hyper-V features?
This video is nice:
czcams.com/video/2MYjThs-iY8/video.html
I have used many different hypervisors on x86, SPARC and IBM Power over the years and in the end the differences are not as stark as they are at first.
Are your videos in some kind of podcast form? Thx
what do most people have against Microsoft ?
We are a Hyper-V shop and I would consider us a small business with enterprise needs. The console comparison is a little off I feel. I would recommend not installing the Desktop Experience version of Windows Server if you are planning on running Hyper-V exclusively on that machine. Then ESXi and Hyper-V (sconfig) look pretty similar. Also, the install footprint is smaller and the updates are more streamlined.
1 more comment is that data center version let's you do hyperconverged storage as well
What about Virtualbox? I use it since 2009 and I still run a number of VMs installed in 2010.
Are your videos intended for home users; home server users; small businesses or large businesses? I have the feeling you aim at large businesses with many servers and more than one server site.
He aims at "home labbers" who have "enterprise like" installs. Multiple servers that they are managing as a single cluster in order to learn how the tech works and/or make their home lab / research / testing easier. The same ideas could also apply to smaller IT-centric startups who want to best manage a small cluster of virtualization servers rather than a larger fleet of individual bare-metal machines.
The problem with it is indeed the basic management gui being trash and basically hasn't evolved for 15 years. SCVMM on the other hand is a fine product, but with a learning curve on its own... and a price. But as for base the technology itsel,f Hyper-V is a very robust product (Windows server 2025 will bring even more performance improvements for HCI). Also another positive thing is that Veeam Backup and others have the DR/Backup part completely covered which is one of the most important considerations for many when taking a decision.
SCVMM makes hyper-v more elegant and modern especially when using Clouds feature to hide the under pinions to users or departments.
What about ESXi vs say Debian libvirt, virt-manager? Its whats under Proxmox, and can be made awesome network wize by running Openvswitch instead of Linux kernel bridging. Openstack (available under Debian) also uses KVM under the hood, with openvswitch. KVM cn pretty much run anything, but IMHO nested virt is not high on my list of must haves at all.
What really bothers me with Hyper-V is the support. I've worked very little with vmware's support, but each time, their support was quick and of great help. We`ve had to deal a few times with Microsoft's support more than once, which was NOT helpful at hell. Most of the times, they struggled to even understand the basics of our problems, did NOT even read what we wrote and tended to drag forever. They even asked to run a wireshark capture on "our" Teams server (really?) to diagnose an issue with Teams Voice... Microsoft Community posts are often quite useless.
Interestingly, ive had your microsoft experience when dealing with vmware support. Never had to deal with microaoft themselves before, but i imagine it'd be equally bad.
Unfortunately have to agree with on-prem support when you are not a n Enterprise Agreement customer (500+ users)
Azure Stack HCI offers much more competent production support.
Could be as cheap as 0 with CSP Subscription or usually 100 bucks a month for all Azure tagged services.
Quite affordable compared to the competition.
HYPER-V equivalent vcenter tool is Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager. Just wanted to point that out.
Or Windows Admin Center
I will watch this video only out of a morbid curiosity 😄
To me Hyper-V doesn't have the same performance that ESXi has - the spinning rust sata disks on my ESXi seem to perform better than similar on Hyper-V so I had to go to SSD to get reasonable response and that's with more virtual instances on ESXi.
should have compare the esxi console to the core version of hyper-v(and the powershell module) and the html5 to hyper-v manager. should have been a more apple to apple comparison.
I debated doing that, but in the end I made the decision to stick with 2022 because 2019 Hyper-V Server is EOL.
@@2GuysTek2022 also has a core version, the only difference is that it's no longer free, but from an installation footprint it may be a lot smaller than the GUI version
@@2GuysTekServer Core with the Hyper-V role + WAC.
@@Korn45678Who uses Server Core? lol
@@Traumatree?? Domain controllers, DHCP, and pretty much anything that doesn’t require the desktop experience. It’s used a lot in enterprise environments. Shit, Exchange on server core is sexy af. 🤷♂️
other than windows VMs, the only other value i see in hyperv is in the desktop.
i love being able to run wsl, gns3, bluestacks and windows sandbox all in parallel from my windows 10 gaming PC.
As to Linux support: Adding insult to injury is that Linux VMs seem to have time sync problems. They always seem to run behind. Maybe they fixed tbat in the last version, but that just sucks hard
If you just need to knock up a couple of M$ VM, Hyper-V will do it, but then you might just as well install one of the other free environments onto Windows- same effort.
Cmon man, atleast compare apples to apples, if you’re going to compare to vcenter then compare to SCVMM. I’ve used both and I do like esxi, but hyper-v is no slouch. I do believe the VDI environment is better, just feels a lot more responsive, without needing to shell out for Horizon tax !!
I was looking forward to this comparison but was let down by the lack of work being put in.
Have you had time to look at RedHat’s offering?
Is there something you’re interested in particular?
@@2GuysTek I do not think I have ever seen the KVM management interface. I’d like to see how RedHat handles storage clustering, high availability and if it is possible to live migrate VMs easily.
One of the biggest hurdles some US based companies will have with proxmox and XCP-NG is country of origin.
With RedHat, it’s the gold standard with governments and large corporations.
My team and I are exploring options that do not include giving Broadcom more money but the path of least resistance is RedHat even over Hyper-V since we still need to support large numbers of Linux VMs.
I gotta say that I had not even considered Hyper-V as an option until I saw your video. I’m exploring KVM, but I am not a sysadmin by trade so it’s always nice to have a seasoned veteran’s take on the topic.
9:34 _"Since Hyper-V doesn't exist without being installed on Windows"_ This is technically incorrect. Hyper-V is a Type-1 hypervisor, and while it _looks_ like you are installing Hyper-V on top of the native Windows Server OS, this is not what happens. When installing the Hyper-V Role on Windows Server, it actually virtualizes the Windows Server OS, and installs the hypervisor underneath on a parent partition. This change is transparent to the end user.
Note: Installing Hyper-V on a Desktop OS such as Windows 10 or 11 installs as a Type-2 hypervisor, meaning it is installed on top of the Windows OS and is dependent on the Windows OS to function. Based on your descriptions, it sounds like you were using this implementation, which doesn't make for a good and equal comparison (Type1 vs Type2).
Thank you!
MS said on their forums that they will put new features first in their Azure HCI Stack before in Hyper-V. Additionally they delay the "feature" integration in new Windows Server generation... Not that smart...
Be excited about Windows Server 2025.
At the moment it has even more features than Azure Stack HCI 23H2 :) expectably, not for long though.
If you're running Hyper-V on a desktop-based Windows Server, you're doing it very wrong. I love Hyper-V because I can manage it using PowerShell.
your not doing it wrong but if you really like to build Hyper-v infrastructure VMM is the way to go and it have alot more network options and integrations to other Microsoft Services. Should also be able to handle VMware but i have not tried this out. ohh and if you set the Virtual Hard disks and Virtual Machines to the same DIR in the Hyper-v configuration tab, it will place it all together instead of spreading it out. Mine is set for D:\. Some Linux isntalls come with the Integration tools already installed, can only remember Ubuntu but i'm pretty sure that there is more.
Consider using Windows Admin Center for VM creation instead Hyper-V MMC. Each VM has an own subfolder by default.
Me First !! I love Hyper-v
Microsoft is pushing towards hybrid management of on pharmacist resources using assure arc, etc.
Anyone know if that $6155 for Windows Data-Center server is per year?
Datacenter Edition OEM/RETAIL would be for a single 16 core license pack and is a perpetual once off purchase and no annual renewal charges till Extended End Of Life of the Windows Version deployed (Oct 2031 for Server 2022). Will allow you to run unlimited Windows VM's as you have licensed all the underlying cores on your host. If you do have a system with more than 16 cores you can purchase additional 2 core packs. It is an economical way to run a MS shop setup. So in essence you can get a good 7+ years out of a single once off purchase.
It depends which agreement type, rebates from list price, OEM vs volume licensing or better CSP subscription.
There are cases when Datacenter is not necessarily needed.
I used hyper-V for 20 Years without system center in domain setup with replica's
Too bad there was not Hyper-v in 2004 yet!
Ten years is fair. First Hyper-V arrived in 2007/2008.
He might speak about Microsoft Virtual PC. Unparalled to Hyper-V.
vSphere charges extra for vSan - HyperV can be uses converged for free.
Hyperconverged storage is only available in the Data Center edition and performs best with RDMA-capable NICs
Hyper-v works fine , also does proxmox , vmware creates their downfall with the new license system
Hyper-v is far from perfect. But it is easy to setup and to manage. But it basically needs MSFT AD to do anything real.
This is a great point here that was not discussed! Effectively, to do anything serious with Hyper-v (replicas/cluster comes to mind) you need an Active Directory else it wont work : and no, anything published since 2012 about how you can do it Hyper-v servers in workgroup doesn't work. Hyper-v was designed (like any of the software in Microsoft arsenal) to work with AD in mind.
@@Traumatreethis requirement is removed with Windows Server 2025
Counting on windows to maintain files =OMG!
Can you elaborate?
About a year ago, I gave HyperV a chance. Fist service provider I'd ever seen who actually deployed VMs on hundreds of HyperV hosts.
I was close to a burnout inside of half a year. Left that job at 7 months. Will never work with HyperV again.
What was bad about it?
@@illyack5593 To be fair, some of it was company policy, too. In short, they didn't trust cluster aware updating so they made a 1500 line powershell script for it. That worked flawlessly about 30 to 50% of the time, depending on whether Microsoft suddenly wanted two reboot cycles and other shennanigans.
Some of the blame goes to HP Synergy blades, who constantly had firmware issues and dead RAM.
However all that being disclaimered, while HyperV works in principle, all the base functionality is there only halfway. Migration doesn't give a damn about NUMA nodes and this company had several VMs with 256 GB or 512 GB of RAM.
VMM was a hot mess, often not displaying current information so you had to work with both Cluster Manager and VMM in parallel.
Microsoft patched HyperV only when absolutely, legally necessary. Getting support was next to impossible. Unless of course you count them wanting you to reboot and, especially funny, send them kernel dumps of hosts with 3 to 4 TB of memory. The service provider was in finances so getting that data OUT of our environment and TO Microsoft usually took a day or two. Per incident.
Scripting for automation is also NOWHERE near as clean as with PowerCLI, despite Microsoft having invented PowerShell.
To this day I have not found a way to check whether the update process in Windows is done or has another stage coming. Granted, that may be a me problem.
tl;dr: AFAIK VMM is a product Microsoft bought at one point. It shows. The different tools feel like the have been clobbered together and after getting them to work most of the time, any development has been absolutely abandoned by MS.
HyperV is still better whan what I see from Proxmox, but give Proxmox another two years and HyperV will choke on its dust.
I am open to debate this offline :)
Some parts are legit. Microsoft is not responsible for poor LCM of an OEM.
“It’s 2024, so iSCSI or bust.” What a ridiculous statement. I won’t get into this too much, but there are workloads where max performance is a requirement, which includes lowest latency possible (I’m talking microseconds here, not slow milliseconds … and it’s not as niche as one might think when dealing with virtualization and multiple workloads on a single host.) iSCSI (and especially NFS for that matter) just don’t cut it.
Don’t get me wrong … iSCSI has its place. However, it’s not something that works for every environment, and statements like “It’s 2024, so iSCSI or bust” doesn’t do anyone any favours at all.
ISCSI comes at huge disatvantages, especially when Storage is full flash NVMe.
If you benchmark this against S2D you will loose. Latency alone. Taking bets.
We have both VMWare and Hyper-V, the number of VMs is about the same on both. Hyper-V is "ok" as a solution.
I prefer VMWare, but we're going to need to move.
My biggest problem with Hyper-V is the UI. It's lacking in every conceivable way.
The second issue is the virtual networking. It's too minimum viable for me, and more difficult to deal with VLANs.
My final issue is that Microsoft is on the rampage for changing (to subscription) and increasing their license cost across the board, and they are breaking out features and charging more for them, or hiding them in much higher cost SKUs, putting them out of reach for a small business.
With the exception of Software SA, I'm fairly certain that Microsoft will push Hyper-V into some subscription type system to match what Broadcom did with VMWare. Per core per year subscription. But it's just a hypothesis.
Get Microsoft SCVMM and you will see how much nicer Hyper-v can be. Windows Admin Center is trying to be an Azure knockoff but it has a long way to go to reach azure or SCVMM parity.
PowerShell and CSV can decently solve your VLAN issues at scale. Promised.
Agreed the UI and UX isn't great still with Windows Admin Center.
I have server 2022 installed directly on my PowerEdge with windows 11 running on hyper v. Its great. But i don't want Microsoft to be the foundation of my environment.
Hyper-V is fine if, like you said, run Windows VMs or supported Linux Distributions.
Other than that tho.... anything else is better.
"Better" in the sense that it's a VMware drop-in replacement. Anything else is their friction vs Broadcom friction.
Hyper-V is fine for standalone servers and the replication isn't bad, but as a cluster ... I have three words for you: Cluster Aware Updating. When it decides to update your network drivers and you lose your jumbo frames setting and your cluster crashes over and over... You will lose your insanity.
Never do driver updates from Windows Update.
Network ATC in Windows Server 2025 will fix your pain with skewed Jumbo configs, promised.
*watches Hyper-V get deployed in a way no sane person would do in a business or home-lab*
Well you did say you knew you were doing it wrong. *shrugs* I was assuming a core install with the add hyper-v feature command giving you a proper lean lvl-1 hypervisor for apples to apples comparison. Never pictured you would install the full GUI server then add the feature... then complain there was not a console because you chose not to install it that way.
The way you did it was more like someone running it on their local Win10/11 system vs a proper server install.
Hyper-v was often a cost cutting solution, which is fine for a lot of environments that don't have a lot of churn. If you have 2 or more hosts, best was iSCSI storage. Forget hyper-converged (Storage Spaces Direct, please don't, unless you have some experienced people on hand) or simple VM replication (set up monitoring, because it will break).
S2D is doing great since Windows Server 2019.
It had issues when it was new. Performance, setup and metrics are great if you do no implement design issues.
Hyper-V might see more development funding rom MS if they think they can pick up VMware refugees.
One thing you forgot to mention, I think, is that hyper-v's compatibility is much better than esxi. ESXi is extremely picky with what hardware you install it on, whereas hyper-v runs on pretty much everything made in the last 15 years. So long as the CPU supports VTx, it installs and runs, making it much easier to get started. You can use your old pc collecting dust in the corner, and not worry about getting stopped by the installer bitching about an incompatible storage adapter.
It seems hyperv was something micrsoft wanted when they started, but when they decided to go all in for azure, hyperv became their ugly keed they didnt want and they are just hoping it dies without they have to kill it
Hyper-V is the stuff that's running Azure, Windows Server and Client security, Xbox, Azure Stack HCI.
And Microsoft is slowly killing Hyper-V as they push everyone to Azure. You'd be crazy to spin up a new Hyper-V instance now.
No, they are still adding new features - and investing heavy into Hyper-V as I write this.
They just added GPU support, and GPU partitions for VM's, and they have new networking features coming......
Updates here:
czcams.com/video/2MYjThs-iY8/video.html
Hyper-v is a type 2 hypervisor as it has be install from inside of a window os
The fact that you use the OS to install the hypervisor is 100% irrelevant as to if the hypervisor is a type 1 or type 2.
What determines a so called "bare metal" type 1 is if the hyper-visors runs UNDER the os, and not on top or part of the OS.
Hyper-V on windows is MOST certainly a bare metal or type 1, as opposed to say virtual box which runs on top or with the installed OS as the host.
It not how you install it, it how it works and runs AFTER you installed it.........
This. Type 1 by all means check the docs. 😊
Hyper-V isn't THAT bad. However the only reason I as an MSP ever use it is because server Standard includes two Server standard VM's without additional licensing (Besides CALs, Remote Desktop CAL's, 16 core minimum licenses.) Oh wait, fuck Microsoft and Hyper-V lol
Lucky you, you don't have to manage A Azure Stack HCI Cluster. It's utter trash.
Can you please elaborate more? I know it still catching up.. But its going to be the new vmware.
Agree 100% went from hyper-v to proxmox & it was a great decision
Long story short, the options out there other than VMware is disappointing at best.
What makes Proxmox disappointing? Not a fanboy (installed it last week), but I am genuinely curious.
@@emiellr The Web UI design and usability for 1, and the fact that you need to power off VM's in order to back them up without sustaining disk corruption! there are plenty of caveats.
@@lostcosmos3245Oh really, because I have PVE running with PBS and I can just snapshot the VM and back that up. Is that problematic?
@@lostcosmos3245 iirc you can just backup a snapshot, or does that corrupt shit?
@@emiellr yup the snapshots corrupt the VM... google proxmox backup disk corruption.
You can’t claim to use hyperv for same stable solid environment like VMware. No offense. It hyperv was still bare metal and could be managed externally and others would still be better. Hyperv is more for engineers etc testing apps and vms on their personal devices. Not run an enterprises on it.
their are a lot of enterprises world wide that have their infra on hyper v clusters get your info correct
Isn’t Hyper-V being sunsetted? According to our MS rep it’s not being developed on anymore
We run vmware, vmware and hyper-v. Removing hyper-v atm though and the new cost of vmware will means probably the only one left will be Nutanix. We are not a small business...
Hyper-V' hosts MUST be Active Directory joined to be able to use important features, which is a major security risk. To prevent ransomware from encrypting storage spaces direct you need a dedicated Hyper-V domain
Its all going away with stack HCI. Get pluggined with cloud stack HCI portfolio
and what important feature is that you are talking about?
I not really aware why the host computer has to be or should be part of a domain????
From what I can tell, anything in regards to being part o fa domain is going to be part of whatever the vm and server running inside of vm wants to be or do - not anything anything much to do with Hyper-V on its own.....
Might be some issue, but I can't think much of any issue or significant feature lost when using Hyper-V on a non domain server.....
@@Albertkallal you don't have live migration and something about storage.
@MarcoTonoli
Live migration goes back to server 2008, which is 16 years ago.
@@Albertkallal what do you mean? live migration is not like vmotion in esxi cluster ? (sorry i'm VMware guy)
Hyper-v sucks. I came from a company that used vsphere and I absolutely hate hyper-v. Had a cluster that could only migrate vms only one direction, something I've never heard of on vsphere. But with the recent takeover of VMware, I can't ask clients to pay 10x the price for it.
No way this is true. You can live migrate bidirectional within a cluster. Anything other is misconfig or different CPUs without EVC enabled.
I found very unilateral your view because all others hypervisors there is Likes and Dislikes, ang hyper-v is the only one that doesnt had the "Like about it" frame. In your opinions its a totally shit... but I strong disagree with this. Recentely a Hospital im my city change all VM base solution in XCP to adopt with Hyper-V, and... they love it... because its just simple and works! and about the nowdays S.O. the MS Hyper-V offers suport to a whole base of freeBSD and Linux flavors... So, I have my doubts in this review and this entire series.
one bad for the Hyper-V is that it is not a good way to install a Microsoft AD domain controller in it, as Hyper-V needs to join the AD domain. I don't like it.
the good for the Hyper-V is that I can have a good plan to move it to Azure Cloud (vhd disk)
Hyper-V doesn't require AD. Only for creation of Clusters. But that will change with Windows Server 2025.
oh i see, thanks.
in this comparison, i did not see anything about differen requirement for a cluster configuration. Seem to A CLUSTER hyper-v NEED an external AD/DNS domain controller to startup vm after a total power off. Cluster without power off is "not reccomended" from microsoft and cannot move vm between host without loose connection to users. Did you see all this problem? Also the better option became a management doman.... so a cluster of 2 host better use another 2 external separated physical DC/DNS server only for management ?!?! hope Broadcom will die.....
See your other reply. It is still not entirely accurate.