Which VM?

TRNC

TRNC

TRNC

Permabanned
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Posts
584
We have a requirement to run 2 simultanious servers on one hardware box, the first is SBS2011 for the modern part of the business, file shares, email etc., the second is Windows XP (32 bit) for a very old 16-bit piece of software.

I gather there is a free version of ESXi and also XenServer - which is better for really basic simple virtualisation or is there a more suited alternative?
 
There's more than just VMware and XenServer, here's a list:

1. VMware
2. XenServer
3. Xen (Source)
4. RedHat KVM / CloudForms etc
5. Proxmox (Debian - based on KVM)
6. VirtualBox
7. Hyper-V

Now I would avoid Hyper-V like the plague, my choice would be 1 or 2 using the free offerings.

XenServer (free) allows you to create a pool of XenServers (using shared storage) so you can fail over VM's from one XenServer to another (live - but you really want to be have a 1/10 gig backbone), useful if you want to take down one of the XenServer nodes in your pool (cluster), VMware doesn't give you this for free like Citrix do.

But, on the other hand the VMWare client / gui is more mature than Xencenter, you can always remove from inventory and the import (which is essentially a more manual way of live migration that XenServer gives you for free except you have to shutdown the VM first in VMware).

If you are looking at it from a CV point of view, go for VMware.
 
Thanks for the info 101001101

We are looking at it from a purely practical point of view as a SME who dont have an IT department and are growing whilst trying to update old systems and bring in new without losing everything - it just needs to be simple!!
 
As above, go with ESXi, its simple to use / manage and will easily do what you want.

What hardware are you planning on dropping it on?

Hyper-V is junk and hardly free.
 
101001101 said:
Hyper-V is junk and hardly free.
Click to expand...

Why is it junk?

Yes it is free

Hyper-V-Server%20Image%202_500x350.png
 
Why can't you just use two boxes? Virtualising SBS2011 just to allow a single instance of XP to run on the same box makes no sense to me. It makes even less sense if the XP application is going to phased out in the foreseeable future.

Virtualisation should make life easier and save money, if it doesn’t then it shouldn’t be implemented.

If you really do need to virtualise then ESXi is a sensible option. Although in my experience most SME type clients still prefer to be able to walk up to the console to interact with their servers.
 
We dont have a second box, we have 1 but 2 requirements. The XP system will be with us to our grave!

It also makes sense with something that is on 24/7 to use as little hardware as possible, why run 2 boxes when 1 will do??
 
It's already been said, because the Linux support is patchy at best.

I strongly recommend ESXi 5, unless you think you will need live migration.

I would consider Xenserver, but to be honest I didn't know it existed when I went with ESXi.
 
Muel said:
It's already been said, because the Linux support is patchy at best.

I strongly recommend ESXi 5, unless you think you will need live migration.

I would consider Xenserver, but to be honest I didn't know it existed when I went with ESXi.
Click to expand...

He's not using Linux :confused:
 
As it's only one host I'd go with Hyper-V as its simple to set up if you don't have any experience with ESXi and you don't need to run Linux VM's. Windows 2012 is coming out soon and I hear the Hyper-V has had a major upgrade.

SBS is pants btw and there will be no further versions produced.
 
Hyper-V R2 is not worth bothering with.
Hyper-V v3 coming with Server 8 is a big upgrade in every respect.

If you can't wait that long, go with ESXi. It's a much more mature product with great features.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
ESXi all the way - you won't get a more solid product (free or paid).

Avoid Hyper-V - it's not in the same league.
Click to expand...

I use ESXi free edition in exactly these kinds of scenarios, it's the best hypervisor there is and it's free so for single host scenarios you can't complain.
 
TRNC said:
Pants according to who? It fills a gap in the market very nicely. Do you have a link to the MS page stating its now discontinued?
Click to expand...

It is discontinued.

Microsoft said:
Q33. Will there be a next version of Windows Small Business Server 2011 Standard?
No. Windows Small Business Server 2011 Standard, which includes Exchange Server and Windows server component products, will be the final such Windows Server offering. This change is in response to small business market trends and behavior. The small business computing trends are moving in the direction of cloud computing for applications and services such as email, online back-up and line-of-business tools.
Click to expand...
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/2012-editions.aspx @ FAQ PDF at the bottom.

It is a great product, but I don't think the value is there for Microsoft to keep producing and support it. Not when they can shoehorn people into inappropriate solutions!
 
:( We dont want cloud services, and dont need full blown multi-server nightmare installs either much like most SME's in the UK.

Ho hum, stick with the current version forever and ever I guess or at least until someone else launches a replacement??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom