I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
"No one is using it in production." <-- False.
figure cited is the number of currently active clusters reporting anonymized census-level telemetry, excluding internal Microsoft deployments and those that are obviously not production, such as clusters that exist for less than 7 days (e.g. demo environments) or single-node Azure Stack Development Kits. Clusters which cannot or do not report telemetry are also not included.
When you have 10K clusters, and your competitors have (Singular) customers closing in on that many clusters that's noise. VMware is reporting over 14K Customers.
The industry standard for reporting product usage is reporting total customer count. Microsoft either knows is embarrassing low, or outright doesn't have the information. My lab which includes a SSD cluster (which is nested on top of vSAN) qualifies as "production" by this definition. Hell if Starwind or Veeams QA lab is leaving stuff on over 7 days he's a production customer!
For comparison VMware and Nutanix both state the number of paying customers they have on earnings calls. This is audited, and making a false statement here could incur jail time. Since both sell discrete software SKU's for their HCI product (and can track generation of licensing keys in the portal) they can give real and actually specific numbers. VMware's phone home tracking (CEIP) can at least tell if a licensing key is a production key vs. a demo or lab license key. It also can tell if the deployment is nested (is the hardware detected as "VMware or some sort of paravirtual device) making it easy to filter and identify. Microsoft including all clusters more than 7 days old that were not on their network and include non-licensed clusters is highly dubious.
When a vendor uses odd qualifications to report customer adoption that are non-standard and use vague criteria you assume the reality doesn't smell like roses.
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
As far as licensing S2D goes, we SPLA the DC license with our SMB deployments starting at 10-15 seats and up. They are also great ReFS repositories for Veeam (something they request to have under their backups).
This only works if they are on your servers, running in your datacenter. You can't use SPLA for customer owned gear.
-
@storageninja said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
This only works if they are on your servers, running in your datacenter. You can't use SPLA for customer owned gear.
Last I checked, you can use SPLA on customer gear. Rule was changed about 1-2 years ago, IIRC.
-
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
This one will be back soon. We'll have a GA for VMware VSA around next week and KVM will follow.
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
-
@kooler
Hello everyone!
Let me add some insides about StarWind VSA since I am with StarWind for some time:)
As it was mentioned already by @kooler right now our development team works on the next release of StarWind VSA. The main focus at the moment is VMware and KVM - thus we will get HyperConverged setup with KVM and StarWind!
Stay tuned! -
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
Could you expand on your statement about Hyper-V not growing? Thanks
-
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
This one will be back soon. We'll have a GA for VMware VSA around next week and KVM will follow.
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
Excellent news!
-
@pmoncho said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
Could you expand on your statement about Hyper-V not growing? Thanks
% between VMware, ESXi and KVM for acquired number of customers doesn't look good for Microsoft.
-
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@pmoncho said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
Could you expand on your statement about Hyper-V not growing? Thanks
% between VMware, ESXi and KVM for acquired number of customers doesn't look good for Microsoft.
That is interesting. Do you think (or anyone here) that it is because of Microsoft focusing and moving more clients on Azure?
-
@pmoncho said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@pmoncho said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@kooler said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
In general we shift our focus from "Hyper-V and VMware" to "VMware and KVM". Reason: Hyper-V doesn't grow anymore and KVM has very high chances to supersede it. VMware... There's just more money there
Could you expand on your statement about Hyper-V not growing? Thanks
% between VMware, ESXi and KVM for acquired number of customers doesn't look good for Microsoft.
That is interesting. Do you think (or anyone here) that it is because of Microsoft focusing and moving more clients on Azure?
Apples and Oranges
Cloud Hosting is different from on prem. Even if you want to look at cloud hosting, AWS is slaughtering Azure.
