I know it, it costs less, and very reliable. Whatever direction we choose it will be for a long-term deployment.
(in this case, you would be much better off with the bare metal version) Likewise you could install the Hyper-V role on a Server Standard edition and then install 20 Guest, and as long as you purchased a valid license for each of those guests you would still be compliant.
If you install Datacenter, you can install all the guests you want and not have to worry about purchasing the guest OS license as long as the guest OS is Server Standard. So you can legally purchase 1 copy of Server 2012 R2 Standard and install two guests with the same OS and all three will be covered by the same license. It is not a limit, it is how many free Guest OS licenses Microsoft affords you with the host OS. What is confusing you is the "Guest License" feature. There is no limit to how many VM Guests you can have on any version of microsoft OS in their licensing agreement. You seem to be confused on how the Licensing works for Hyper-V. 1 License for each host for the possibility of having to fail over to the other system. Like moving your VM's around all day every day without incurring MS Licensing Wrath.īut with a single setup, you'd be well suited with 2 Standard licenses. With Data Center licensing you get some really great features that you never have to worry about. Yes Gartner doesn't place XenServer in the "magic quadrant" but it takes a lot more into consideration, there were a lot of other links I provided there which I think gives quite a balanced view of the technology.ĭustinB3403 wrote:Licensing cost is identical no matter what hypervisor you chose. Market penetration is a huge issue, this increases the online support/information, number of tech staff with experience on market, larger community to find edge case bugs, ongoing development and support, compatibility & stability with 3rd party software/devices to name just a few.Ĭomparing the performance Xen 6.5 to ESXi 5.5 given their releases were 18 months apart knowing ESX6 was due to be released 3 months later is not really like for like and one could argue a bit deceitful. Not withstanding the known issues with XenServer even just reported in this community some of which covered by myself. I respect the fact that you like XenServer, but you have to admit there is a lot more to technological decisions than just the tech. These are not things to "be concerned about" the cautionary items are bogus events ofġ) You might not have heard about XenServer because of advertising (from other competitors)Ģ) Open source competition (VMWare and Hyper-V both face the same competition)ģ) Citrix is no longer the primary developer of XenServer, and therefore not in charge of "marketing it".
0 kommentar(er)
