Newsletter:

Skip Navigation LinksHome > News > Software > PacLib performs VMware analysis but chooses Microsoft

PacLib performs VMware analysis but chooses Microsoft

By Ry Crozier
6 October 2008 06:30AM
Tags: paclib | microsoft | hyperv | vmware | vmotion

The PacLib Group has baulked at a $50,000 quote from VMware to virtualise its environment, deciding instead to take on Microsoft’s Hyper-V.

The privately-owned industrial and commercial developer engaged Thomas Duryea Consulting to perform an analysis of the suitability of its environment for virtualisation using VMware technology.

The analysis involved monitoring PacLib’s servers for a month, according to IT manager David Furey.

“They came back with a proposal of about $25,000 in installation costs and another $25,000 in software costs,” Furey told iTnews.

“You’ve got to question whether it’s worth paying $50,000 for that. I know the VMware camp go on about features like VMotion, but for $50,000 I could pay someone to move my virtual machines for me.”

Furey decided instead to look at Microsoft’s Hyper-V, then in beta.

“To us, it looked like we weren’t losing any performance or benefits of virtualisation but we were saving a lot of money,” Furey explained.

“It just didn’t make financial sense to spend all that money [on vmware], when if we want to add more Hyper-Vs, it’s $49 per server.”

Furey was also comfortable with Microsoft’s roadmap to go from offering the ability to do live -- rather than only safe-state -- migration.

Live migration was demonstrated by Microsoft last month and is expected to be included as part of Windows Server 2008 R2.

Rosemary Stark, Microsoft Australia’s product manager for Windows Server and Infrastructure Products, believes the cost of Hyper-V is lowering the barriers to adoption of virtualisation.

“A lot of companies have virtualisation in pockets but it’s been very much at the high-end,” Stark said.

“The lower costs of Hyper-V has allowed people who wanted to virtualise their environment to do so.”

    Next Page >


Ads by Google


Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
Comments: 8
When I checked out this arcticle yesterday, there were a couple of comments explaining why this article does not make sense and is biased towards MS. They are gone today. Did MS pay you to delete those comments?
iTnews - comments icon Posted by SNOct 6, 2008 4:39 PM
SN, I believe you may have read it on our sister title, CRN. The comments are still there.
iTnews - comments icon Posted by Ry CrozierOct 6, 2008 6:22 PM
"cabled for IPv6" sounds a little funny, cabling is at layer 1, IPv6 sits above that and doesn't have any specific cabling requirements. Could it be CAT6?
iTnews - comments icon Posted by ABOct 8, 2008 12:03 PM
To each their own virtualization solution I say. The Windows Virtualization Team has picked up on this story and is proudly displaying it on their blog. From what I've seen come from MS lately, it would seem they have cut back severely on their marketing talent. Hopefully for the sake of the customers they have fooled into adopting Hyper-V, the money saved is being invested into virtualization R&D. Their customers deserve better.
iTnews - comments icon Posted by Jason BocheOct 8, 2008 4:44 PM
come on people, do you actually think VMware is going to is able to maintain the marketshare? Those who start the a good thing usually never sustain it, second runner or even third runner are much hungrier than the lead. I believe VMware has done awesome in changing the landscape, kudos, but they will not hold the dominance for much longer. I am definitely not a MS biggot, but I call it how I see it. Jrod
iTnews - comments icon Posted by jrodmtoOct 9, 2008 8:42 AM
come on people, do you actually think VMware is going to is able to maintain the marketshare? Those who start the a good thing usually never sustain it, second runner or even third runner are much hungrier than the lead. I believe VMware has done awesome in changing the landscape, kudos, but they will not hold the dominance for much longer. I am definitely not a MS biggot, but I call it how I see it. Jrod
iTnews - comments icon Posted by jrodmtoOct 9, 2008 8:42 AM
So the client says "that both Exchange and SQL Server run on separate Hyper-V servers and by themselves due to their respective workloads." Someone explain to me what is the point of running one VM on one host? And one that doesn't even have the load balancing features of VMware? And to add to that, the VMs now run at a slightly higher utilisation rate, granted due to virtualisation overhead, but since there is a 1:1 relationship between VM and physical machine - what is/was the point?
iTnews - comments icon Posted by KFMOct 10, 2008 4:00 PM
I feel bad for PacLib having an inept IT manager, however he did make the right virtualisation choice but for the wrong reasons. VMWare is not really a contender for a virtualisation around 10-15 servers, MS is actually a viable alternative there. That said, the comment made by Furey shows that he is definitely not up to the task of IT management since he doesn't grasp the concepts. I would also lay the blame at the doorstep of the consultancy firm since they obviously failed to relay the benefits of the competing products.
iTnews - comments icon Posted by Jonas BerglundOct 13, 2008 3:01 PM
Report this comment as offensive:

   * Indicates information we require to process your submission.

Name: *
Email: *
Reason for offense: *
Your report will not be displayed.  
Name:
*
 
Email:
(will not be displayed)
*
 
Comment:
(HTML not permitted)
*
 
Validation
*

Enter the code you see below:

 

 
 
 
 
 






iTnews 2009 Job Survey

TopTopics
(7260) -  top
(3128) -  microsoft
(2310) -  broadband
(2209) -  content
(2150) -  company
(2117) -  data
(1927) -  terria
(1862) -  isp
(1811) -  nbn
(1720) -  telstra
(1711) -  filtering
(1581) -  internode
(1538) -  voip
(1439) -  centre
(1148) -  consumers