Re: VMWare (was: Thunderbird)

["Lukas Beeler" <lukas.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Walden H. Leverich
<WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Performance/Responsiveness of the
>  >VMs have improved a lot over Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
>  Virtual Server sucks! (And I'm the pro-MS guy). :)

Oh, yes, it does. It really does. But when we started with
Virtualization, all of vmware's offering costed a lot of money, and we
got Virtual Server for free because of our MS Partner Status. And
we're not running any production works in VMs.

Still, Hyper-V is a major improvement over VS2005, so i'd guess MS is
coming en par with vmware one step at a time.

>  On the higher-end VMWare adds in stuff like VMotion too -- the ability
>  to move a _running_ virtual server between two physical servers.

Hyper-V was originally touted to do that too. Not relevant for us, as
we don't have a SAN nor need that functionality. It's still nice
though.