In-Depth

Virtual Server Has Real Fans

Now that it's free and has "official" Linux support, users find Virtual Server 2005 R2 a more compelling option.

Microsoft's Virtual Server is gaining fast on market-leader VMware. Microsoft bought the core technology for Virtual Server from Connectix, and originally charged $199 for the enterprise edition and $99 for the standard version. When Virtual Server 2005 R2 Enterprise Edition debuted last April, Microsoft dropped the standard version altogether and made the enterprise edition a free download.

VSR2infoThe response was overwhelmingly positive. "It's Microsoft, it's free and I don't have to take any money out of my budget to give it a try. And it works great," says Tom Catalini, director of IT for William Gallagher Associates, an insurance firm in Boston.

Catalini just recently began experimenting with Virtual Server. By taking one physical server and using it to run multiple virtualized servers, Virtual Server lets him consolidate hardware while easing overall management. "Now I don't have to worry whether or not it's the same kind of machine with the same hardware and drivers," Catalini says. "By abstracting that hardware layer, I can port my applications wherever and whenever I need."

Users say server virtualization helps increase capacity without stretching the budget. "We'd love to have a full-fledged test center, with five or 10 machines, but we don't have the space or the equipment to do that," says David Feldman, director of IT at Orchard Place, a Des Moines, Iowa-based group that provides mental health and juvenile justice services for at-risk youths. "Using Virtual Server lets us get stuff accomplished with a lot less hardware."

Living La Vida Linux
One of the most important changes to Virtual Server R2 was Linux support. "I loved it before but it didn't do Linux, and because of that I had no use for it," says Randy Hinders, senior NT administrator at Donet Inc., an ISP in Dayton, Ohio. "Now that it's free and supports Linux, it's definitely an eye-opener." Donet is looking to offer Web hosting on virtualized servers, and many of its customers wanted to use Linux.

David Marshall and Wade Reynolds, both senior infrastructure architects at Austin, Texas-based Surgient Inc., agree that Linux support was critical. "People have been asking for Linux forever," Marshall says. "It was in the initial Connectix product and was pulled out, but a lot of people run both Windows and Linux, especially in testing, so that was a problem." He says you could virtualize Linux servers prior to R2, but it wasn't officially supported so it ran poorly.

Still, big Linux shops may want to consider VMware or the open source Xen server virtualization tool. "They currently support a wider variety of Linux distributions," Reynolds says.

Virtually Painless
Users give Virtual Server high marks for ease of use, especially when it comes to building a virtual machine (VM) and using the integrated Web-based management console. "It's definitely easy to learn, easy to install and easy to get your virtual machines created," says Reynolds. "You can do it with a lot less planning [than with VMware], so it's an easier point of entry."

The management console, because it's Web-based and not a typical MMC-type plug-in, is also easy to use. "The console is pretty intuitive," Hinders says. "If you're used to looking around Web sites, you shouldn't have any problem."

The console also has some features that other virtualization tools do not. "One nice feature is a thumbnail view of what's going on inside each virtual machine," Marshall says. "If you have your Web administrator interface up and you have 10 VMs running on that box, you can actually see a thumbnail image of what's on them."

Catalini also likes the console because of its portability and accessibility. He did add, however, that he doesn't use it much because he found it was easier to simply turn on remote management in the operating system itself. "That lets me use the remote desktop connection just like I do for any other server," he says. "You can't tell the difference."

Microsoft has also made licensing for virtualized servers more attractive. "Microsoft's making it hard to resist," says Michael Hanna, senior systems engineer at Infinity Network Services in Tallahassee, Fla. "You can run up to four virtual machines on an enterprise server if you're running Virtual Server. That alone is pretty compelling because, although I lean toward VMware, when you factor in the cost of licensing, the differences aren't enough. I'm not going to spend a couple thousand on licenses just because I like ESX a little better."

Starting Oct. 1, licensing becomes more compelling as Microsoft will let Windows 2003 Datacenter Edition users run an unlimited number of virtualized instances of Windows Server.

Not There Yet
Although Virtual Server meets users' needs right now, they have specific feature requests for future releases. "The only thing that's missing that I've noticed is the ability to do snapshots, where you can quickly revert back to a previous state," Feldman says.

Hinders says VMware enjoys a lead with its ability to take snapshots of guest operating systems. "But with Virtual Server, there's no automated way to do that. You can manually pause it, copy the Virtual Server file and restart it. For internal usage or testing, it's no big deal. But when you start taking this to production environments running mission-critical applications, you can't have that."

Different Strokes

There are two main flavors of server virtualization, and Microsoft has both covered. Microsoft's Virtual Server, like VMware's VMserver (previously called GSX server), is a hosted server virtualization platform. That means the virtualization software must run on a host operating system on the server hardware.

The other flavor is what Microsoft is calling Hypervisor, which requires no host OS prior to loading the virtualization software. VMware's ESX Server, XenSource's Xen and the virtualization functionality in Longhorn Server all employ a Hypervisor server virtualization layer.

Generally speaking, Hypervisor-type products minimize overhead for better performance and robustness. A main differentiator is cost. Most hosted types, like Virtual Server and VMserver, are free. Most Hypervisor products, like ESX Server, charge a licensing fee. Xen is an exception, because it's open source.

The Hypervisor capability in Longhorn is expected to become a part of the operating system, with no extra license required. -- J.C.

Virtual Server's robust scripting capabilities can help out there, other users say. "We could write a script that shuts down the servers at midnight, copies them to New Jersey, and then turns them back on again," Catalini says. "So I'd get the same thing, have a clean up-to-date copy, and there's no management overhead to doing that." He added that he would, however, prefer to eventually see an automated snapshot capability.

Another missing piece is support for 64-bit guest operating systems. Currently, Virtual Server will support a 64-bit operating system on the host machine, but not on the virtual servers. "That's going to be a big issue with the new Exchange, which is going to be 64-bit only," Hanna says. "Right now, we're constrained to actually use a 64-bit machine for testing when we'd like to virtualize it instead."

Virtual networking support is another element that is less than robust. "That's one area that VMware has over Virtual Server," Hanna says. "With VMware, you can go to your own virtual switch or subnets, and you have more options. You can create virtual networks in Virtual Server, but you essentially tie it to an adapter and that's it. It's not as granular."

Reynolds agrees, and says he'd like to see Virtual Server support 802.1Q VLAN tagging. "Virtual Server has a little bit of catch up to do with VMware on its robustness of virtual networking and virtual switches," he says.

Lack of virtual SMP support is also an issue. "With Virtual Server, you can do relative weight, but you can't specify [something like] this VM uses this percentage of this processor," Marshall says. "A nice [feature] to have for us would be virtual SMP support, so you can say it will share from these two processors out of these four, or something like that. Realistically, if you're trying to get into the production data center, you really do need to have a virtual SMP."

Still, readers say Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 is worth a look. "I'm pretty jazzed up about it," Catalini says. "Right now, I have rickety old PCs that are strung together. With this, I get to clean them up and they go away. Things are going to run on better hardware, be backed up more consistently, be more portable and recoverable and have cleaner configurations."

comments powered by Disqus

Reader Comments:

Mon, Apr 2, 2007 Sinan Anonymous

The article has a lack of give examples from real life which applications runnig on VM.
Thanks
Sinan

Thu, Nov 16, 2006 viji kumar bangalore

By delivering a product like this, Microsoft made a tremendous step towards its loving customers. Surely the result will reflect from the customer-side as the Microsoft seeks. . It will reduce the cost by the current product, by running an application both in server and client platform .With a reduction of price and amplification of the product capability boost up the confidence in Microsoft; moreover it is a sweet shoot towards Linux solitary lovers ......TRATUM TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE

Fri, Nov 3, 2006 Herb Wisconsin

I agree that the "free" portion of Virtual Server is attractive. I would like to see how companies using it in production handle Patch Tuesday after Patch Tuesday. The underlying OS needs to be patched and Microsoft is 1 or 2 years away from providing a VMotion-like feature. I don't want to see VMware become an also-ran but at this point my money is on VMware as the better, more robust product for production level virtualization.

Thu, Oct 19, 2006 RENJITH AABASOFT Solution India

One of the most important changes to Virtual Server R2 was Linux support. "I loved it before but it didn't do Linux, and because of that I had no use for it,". "Now that it's free and supports Linux, it's definitely an eye-opener." Donet is looking to offer Web hosting on virtualized servers, and many of its customers wanted to use Linux.

AABASOFT Solutions

Thu, Oct 19, 2006 SUJAS AABASOFT India

As Developer, it is a wonder thing.. It is very helpful for our site supporting programmers and supporting hands.. The main advantage is we can develop in server platform and also possible to run in client application.. This is an attractive advantage.. The main feature is "IT IS LESS EXPENISIVE".. When compare with earlier products, we can trial this will Zero expense.. It is also a good feature..

AABASOFT SOLUTIONS

Thu, Oct 19, 2006 SUJAS ALI India

As Developer, it is a wonder thing.. It is very helpful for our site supporting programmers and supporting hands.. The main advantage is we can develop in server platform and also possible to run in client application.. This is an attractive advantage.. The main feature is "IT IS LESS EXPENISIVE".. When compare with earlier products, we can trial this will Zero expense.. It is also a good feature..

AABASOFT SOLUTIONS

Tue, Oct 17, 2006 Stanford Edmonton

Having tried for 8 months to contact the VMWare partner rep, so that our company could become a VMWare partner and help to get their superior product out to the world, I was surprisingly snubbed by VMWare. I even went as far as to speak directly to the VP of Marketing to no avail. The response I got from VMWare was "oh, to become a VMWare partner is VERY expensive. I don't think your company is big enough."
I am actually a huge fan of VMWare ESX server, but unfortunately, thanks to the team at VMware I have now decided to go and investigate what the Microsoft offering can do. VMWare ESX server I'll agree is miles ahead of MS VSR2 even, but with a corporate attitude like that? I hope VMWare realizes that they are going down that path of Novell, and Netscape, and all the other companies with great companies who "thought" they were "better" then Microsoft. VMWare's technology may be better now, but Microsoft is no slouch. Microsoft biggest strength is their willingness and ability to listen to the market place, which VMWare apparently didn't seem to give a damn about.
It'll sure be interesting to see when VMWare actually wakes up to the reality of the Microsoft threat, and tip their noses down and actually see their partners as someone who can help. Unfortunately a little to late with this potential partner. I say go Microsoft, and once again teach VMWare a lesson in business.

Fri, Oct 13, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous

I recently attended a Virtual Server 2005 R2 Workshop and had a good chance to compare the product to the current free VMWare Server 1.01 product. VMWare Server really shines and is about 2 years ahead from Microsofts offering. I have yet to find one single item in Microsofts offering that offers an advantage! But I only find faults in Microsoft Virtual Server that are not present in VMWares offering: No 64bit guest support, No USB-Guest support, Not possible to use the cdrom of the controlling client to mount cds for running vm-guests, only precompacting of vhd files (filling with zeroes, but no shrinking option.
You can run VMWare Server on a Linux distribution, so there are essentially no costs for the host os. You can even buy W2K3 Enterprise R2, so you can run 5 Licenses on a single VMWare Server Linux hosts. I have verified that with a Microsoft Person.
I don't want to promote VMWare here, but from the raw facts, the MS Product is really inferior...

Thu, Oct 5, 2006 Rob Williams

Bob,
I appreciate your opinion, but a few things to remember.

VMware doesn't have a host, but you're paying for the VMware license which costs more than Windows so that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, remember that before Microsoft joined the virutalization battle, VMware prices were far more exhorbitant than they are now. Competition is good and everyone's benefiting. BTW: VMware is owned by EMC. They're not hurting for cash.

Wed, Oct 4, 2006 Mat Polutta DC

VMWare is currently owned by EMC. There is definitely a war going on for Market Share and the selling of hardware vs. OS's and other software products.

Tue, Oct 3, 2006 Bob Williamson Seattle

Before I rant and rave, look at the fact that MS VS 2005 requires a Windows host license, whereas VMWare ESX eliminates that cost for a host. Thus the relative cost is similar for locally held VMs (for ESX Starter).

Microsoft creating/purchasing a product, giving it away in an attempt to put a smaller company out of business. Netscape, I mean Symantec, I mean VmWare, have better products, but smaller bank acounts.

The recent acquisitions of Winternals and DesktopStandard (to name just two), will almost certainly put other small business's out of business and cause those businesses to innovate less.

How will this affect VMWare? By product dumping VS 2005 away others will never be able to compare it to the superior ESX Server. Why even look at a superior product when a free one can get you by?

I owe my house, car and other personal assets to the fact I am able to work with MS products, but I have to say I it makes me sad to watch superior products fall by the way side because of monopolistic behavior.

Do yourself a favor and take a look at the superior VMWare products.

Add Your Comment Now:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Redmond Tech Watch

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.