Microsoft pledges Linux boost for Windows Server and Center R2 duo Microsoft has vowed Windows Server 2012 R2 and System Center 2012 R2 will be the “best” platform for running Linux in the cloud. Microsoft shops departing from the faith and running Linux will get a “consistent” experience on a par with its beloved Windows, Redmond promised. The software giant made the pledge to persuade …
Windows house needing Linux ? Do you really think we're that stupid to swallow that ?
I work in a Windows shop. We have 2 Linux servers forced upon us when the vendor for our security camera system quit supporting the Windows version of their server. We could either replace $1.5 million worth of security cameras or set up a couple Linux servers. It was a no brainer.
Absolutely no one would seriously consider running Linux on top of Windows. IT decision makers choose Linux because it is far more reliable than Windows, far more cost effective than Windows, and far more maintainable than Windows.
Running a Linux guest on top of a Windows hypervisor removes most of the advantages of running Linux in the first place.
My organisation does it. We use Windows almost exclusively, virtualise everything, and run the odd Red Hat install when the application (or supplier) demands it. Otherwise it's Windows all the way.
I used to be a FreeBSD dude, but slowly came to the conclusion you can't find Windows forever, when all the business systems integrate ONLY with AD, and when we did move over, I haven't looked back once.
"...Running a Linux guest on top of a Windows hypervisor removes most of the advantages of running Linux in the first place...."
Could you elaborate? Which advantages are removed by running Linux on Hyper-v, which aren't removed by running it on any other hypervisor?
Hyper-v has something like 30% of the hypervisor market at the moment (for PC hardware) so I strongly suspect that there are a fair few companies running Linux on Hyper-v. Personally I run a few linux boxes on hyper-v in my home lab, I also run Windows on hyper-v and both on VMware.
"Hyper-V Server is a dedicated stand-alone product that contains the hypervisor, Windows Server driver model, virtualization capabilities, and supporting components such as failover clustering, but does not contain the robust set of features and roles as the Windows Server operating system. As a result Hyper-V Server produces a small footprint and and requires minimal overhead."
FREE download: http://www.microsoft.com/click/services/Redirect2.ashx?CR_EAC=300055432
Go on then, how can I get support - proper support, mind, with SLAs, pre-compiled binaries etc - for RedHat, without paying RedHat? I could move to CentOS, but you get the binaries, but no support, those paid for support services that are available for CentOS aren't up to the level of Red Hat's support and often commercial software doesn't support CentOS as an install platform. I can't really move to a Debian based distro, without a major ball ache - I've tried, it's not as easy as you might imagine - so I'm stuck with Red Hat.
I don't really mind being stuck with them, but don't paint Linux as a system which allows free and easy movement between distros, it just doesn't.
"IT decision makers choose Linux because it is far more reliable than Windows, far more cost effective than Windows, and far more maintainable than Windows."
Welcome to the 21st Century. Now that you are out the Delorian, it's time to learn that those days are long gone. These days, Windows Server scales better, has better clustering, is faster, has better scripting, has a more powerful and flexible security and auditing model, is a better Hypervisor, has a lower TCO in most enterprise uses, and has far fewer security vulnerabilities than any enterprise Linux distribution. Windows Server even has a better and faster clustered NFS 4.1 server than Linux!
"These days, Windows Server scales better, has better clustering, is faster, has better scripting, has a more powerful and flexible security and auditing model, is a better Hypervisor, has a lower TCO in most enterprise uses, and has far fewer security vulnerabilities than any enterprise Linux distribution"
Possibly, just possibly on Planet Vogsphere but nowhere else in the known universe !
"Possibly, just possibly on Planet Vogsphere but nowhere else in the known universe !" I guess you are trying to be funny, but have you been to a data centre running server after server of windows?
As I have stated before on here I run an estate of just under 5,000 servers in three main datacentres around the world, all Windows, onto of which there is a lot of vms - and do you think we accept unplanned downtime? We started a few years ago on ESX and in the end threw it away because of the other geezer said - lower TCO all around.
"Erm, you know that whole "TCO" marketing drive has been thoroughly debunked now?"
Erm - no it hasn't - there are recent examples like Munich council where IBM buried million of pounds - and they still havn't completed a migration after ten years!
The most detailed study I have seen found that Linux was indeed cheaper for something - but only webservers. With the recent changes in Windows Server 2012 to support scale out web farms, large scale certificate management, etc. I suspect that even that niche is no longer cheaper with Linux.
This is why no significant volume of corporates migrate to Linux. In fact far more go the other way - from Unix / Linux in the midrange to Windows Server.
Yeah, because "Miek" tells me exactly who you are and all the other handles you use and when you don't and you post as AC.
As it happens, I stopped posting with my handle when someone said they thought they knew who I was and threatened to "test my security" and that of my employer. Since then I've changed employer and they have very strict rules about posting in forums which are related to the company's core business. As we're a hardware and software vendor I'm not going to be posting here with a handle any time soon.
That said, I've been commenting here since you had to email the authors of the articles you wanted to comment about.
“Going forward, Microsoft will continue..." -Eric Chapple
The phrase "going forward", used in this context*, has got to be the most completely, totally, without exception and without equal the most redundant phrase in the English language. It's use indicates that the speaker is either unfamiliar with the language itself, unfamiliar with time as it applies to humans, or is too intellectually limited to parse a sentence before it comes out of their mouth.
* I'm ok with cars going forward. Sometimes backwards too. Though hopefully not sideways because that usually results in people getting hurt.
Though they got a ways to go still.. my company for example is currently on Ubuntu 10.04(not supported in Hyper-V apparently based on the article at least) 64-bit on top of vSphere 4.1 (though just about to start upgrading to 12.04 LTS).
Was just looking at vSphere's linux supported list:
http://www.vmware.com/resources/compatibility/search.php?deviceCategory=software&testConfig=16
Just running a search for esxi 5.1 and all Linux OSs lists 211 results
If I change it to 4.1U3 (what I run) that grows to 233 results.
Obviously MS's angle is not for Linux-only shops to switch since none will. But in the case of shops that have a majority of windows and just a few linux hosts it may make sense. My small company is the inverse, at least as a % of total systems, windows VMs are probably about 8%(~40), the rest are Linux(~500). When we made the decision to go vSphere I didn't have enough faith in Hyper-V or RHEV to commit to it at the time(hundreds of millions of revenue at stake). RHEV is looking pretty decent these days, though there's no
need to make any changes right now. My upgrade from vsphere 4.1 will likely be to RHEV though whenever that ends up happening.
We use RHEV. I took the chance on it (Partly due to budget) and shifted to RHEV 3.2. The interface is a little more simplistic than VMware or Hyper-V but I really am happy about the purchase. We run mostly RHEL 6 for servers, but we have some Windows running on it also and haven't had any problems.
Microsoft = closed = not going to support Linux forever.
So.. why would I want to bank on a company that is going to promise temporary functionality?
Works with Linux today... I'll promise you that it won't work with Linux tomorrow. Microsoft will not open up enough to ensure long term Linux platform support. It's simply not built into their ideology.
Big mistake for anyone who goes this route.
If someone like Nate Amsden (with his usual spot on post) were to choose Hyper-V do you not think he would ensure there is a long term support in place? People with big estates, like him in *ix and me in Win don't make moves based on some unwritten gentlemans agreement. You shouldn't worry for us, we agree life cycles for many years ahead.
" but have you been to a data centre running server after server of windows?
As I have stated before on here I run an estate of just under 5,000 servers in three main datacentres around the world, all Windows"
I don't think Google and a host of others will be too impressed by a piddling 5000
This article hurt my brain. Why would I use Hyper V when Hyper V is more expensive than Vmware? With Vmware I don't need an expensive Windows license either so this gets even cheaper... I set up and run a cold Linux sans Xorg with Vsphere, takes like 10 minutes if you don't have an image already. If you do its even quicker, boot Linux, enter Vsphere licensing, run Linux "in the cloud" in virtual machines. Neither Windows or Hyper V is required for this. Windows Server unlimited is like $5000 USD, knock on each Hyper V license and you are looking at $2000 per license extra. So each system would need $7000 in licensing fees not to mention you are locked into 1 OS, you cant change this to OS X, or another Linux distribution. Not to mention tacked on hidden fees when you call them for support. If you run anything but Windows, that support cost is doubled. No Mac OS X support either.
For VSphere 1 server without load sharing (which is all that is required) is $520USD, the 3 host one is more expensive, $4000USD but you can use the same license on up to 3 servers sharing the same load, with Windows you have to have a separate license for each server or blade. Windows does not support load sharing by the way, so if 1 server gets overloaded, it simply hands it off to another, where vmware acts more like raid ALL THE TIME, so your network is far less clogged. For each workstation fee you are looking at $249, so in essence if you can get away with the cheapest setup. Vmware unlimited is only $6340, this includes unlimited installs of workstation, vmware server, and vsphere, 1 year of service, and if you have a as one of the Spheres, you can essentially run OS X in the cloud and access it via any workstation whether it has an apple logo on it or not.
I am not a fanboy and you can do all this even cheaper if you do it all by hand in Linux via it's own services, most of which are even free! Mac also has these services built in for free, and if you pay a $999 developer fee you can host OS X unlimited, and run any OS, Windows, Linux, or OS X in the cloud. This is of course not counting the hidden support costs Apple charges, but $1000USD isnt expensive if you can do it on your own.
In conclusion if you begin to shop around, Microsoft begins to look very ugly, and much better options exist. I hate the register and I am going to stop reading the articles posted on here because they are all bullcrap.
Except Hyper-V is free.
You only need to license Windows guests. And in their haste, many people often overlook the enhanced licensing you get when running Windows guests on a supported hypervisor platform.
And your data is somewhat out of date - look at Hyper-V 3.0 functionality.
VMware load balancing and DRS also simply hands off guests to another host if the current host is too resource constrained.
Let's not forget too, that the 3-server versions of VMware are constrained by features and - again a point oft overlooked - if the time comes when you need to upgrade, you also have to buy the management server as a separate and quite expensive component...VMware is not cheap in the enterprise.
There are other alternative hypvervisor platforms out there - Citrix or non-Citrix Xen, KVM etc.
You could always select the appropriate software for yourself by assessing which matches skill sets, features, price points etc.
Or take the usual foaming at the mouth option of most of the people posting here and choose only your favourite technology because vendor x is bad.
So let's see what Micrsoft wants to do is get Linux server SysAdmins to pay $2000 for their WindoZe iis server then allow the iis server to run a Linux VM?
Redmonds problem: Windows server market share is dwarfed in comparison to Linux server market share. Not to mention the difference in Linux stability.
In other words take a perfect Linux server OS on a VM which resides on a Linux server which has average uptime of years and not minutes and run a Linux VM on a MicroKlunk platform that will force Linux to have almost no uptime as the Host i.e. The WindoZe iis server is constantly having to be rebooted.
Totally ridiculous!
How dumb is this? Who in their right mind would even consider paying money to Microsoft so they can ruin the far more superior and free Linux VM server business.
NO ONE. This is another Zune, a Bob, Windows 8, and the list is growing rapidly.
What are they smoking in Redmond these?
Call the Police and report a 420.!
I think you've missed the point. Hyper-v is a hypervisor, it's also free. You don't need to install Windows in order to use Hyper-v, although you can run it on top of a Windows installation. You certainly don't need IIS installed in order to run a Linux VM.
Then again, does a real "IT Guru" actually call OSes names and suggest that Linux is "perfect". I think not.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
