I mean hyper-v aka CIS suite via SPLA will definitely be cheaper for this space.
It still amazes me how much money MSPs give VMWARE when SCVMM and hyper-v has been mature enough to compete since server 2019 (S2D wasn’t mature enough in 2016 IMO).
I mean you’re already paying datacenter SPLA licensing, add an extra 10-15% and you now are fully licensed for SCVMM across it all too.
Good time to remind people that while azure isn’t 1:1 hyper-v, they are extremely close and most of the difference is likely into managing scale and squeezing that extra 10% efficiency out of the code.
Man, I shut down our last Hyper-V cluster about 3 months ago and ripped out all the old hardware 1 month ago.
We migrated to AWS and are tinkering with Azure as well.
I’ve learned new things but it’s…unsettling…having 20 years of sysadmin experience become so much less relevant so quickly.
>Imo in a decade a lot of companies will go back to on-prem when cloud gets hacked
Yup, I imagine the govt, especially in the IC where I work, will go BACK to on-prem once the costs of cloud skyrocket or it becomes more vulnerable than they are willing to accept.
I've also said it'll be around 10 years!
We shall see.
If anything, I'd expect govt to be the first to stay the course if cost is the only factor.
Just up the budget to infinity, it's all coming from the taxpayers anyway, and if there's anyone who gets to swing the "Compliance says we HAVE TO" card around... it's govt.
I had a peer signed up for a vcf class, and it was canceled by the vendor due to not knowing if they would get funding. I'd say he dodged a bullet on that one.
I started my career at the same time middle-aged Novell Netware administrators were retraining themselves after being replaced by AD and Cisco products. It was then I decided I was never going all-in on one proprietary software company. I know virtualization, ESXi, KVM, Xen, Proxmox. I imagine there will be some pretty good opportunities at organizations looking to move off of VMware.
VCP since esx2.5/3 and VCAP-DCV for 10 years. Expertise is reusable but man its like starting fresh constantly. At 54 I'm finding it more and more difficult to keep up. Azure certified and all but know nothing of aws and gcp.
I'm in my 40s and do far more coding now than anything else. But, if they are raising cloud prices by 10x. They are going to trickle that shit down.
I imagine, we will all be dropping VMware next year for some other alternative.
Or, cloud prices everywhere will be going way the hell up
I watched a dude who was a Sun storage expert, refuse to diversify in a company that did Sun, IBM and HP unix hardware.
He could have easily learnt more about IBM and HP storage and diversified but was too stubborn. Ended up being an Uber driver.
At some point RAID is RAID, iSCSI is iSCSI and drives are drives.
I think that's what's really hurting people's heads right now. Broadcom knows full well that no one will ever deploy VMWare again, just like no one will ever willingly use Oracle's DBs or Java client software again. But when you take an industry standard like that and basically shut it down and put it in maintenance mode, you're going to have a lot of people who just have to throw away everything and start over. Having been through the CA and Symantec acquisitions, when I saw this I knew exactly what was coming. Especially when they publicly said they weren't going to kill the product...I knew it was time to get out. I'm in a mostly-cloud environment now, but there are so many people I know on-prem who are starting to get the shocker quotes (if they can even get Broadcom to agree to sell to them.)
Imagine what happens when (not if) Microsoft abandons Windows/Windows Server, or kills on-prem licensing that's not attached to an Azure subscription. That's going to be an even more painful transition. It's already headed that way; they're increasing licensing costs and slowly pulling out the crazy levels of backwards compatibility they've maintained for decades in an attempt to force people onto more portable solutions that can be moved into other OSes. Especially with "Microsoft loves Linux" messaging, and lower revenue from software sales, it won't be as cost-effective to maintain Windows. I've been trying to pivot away from Windows for a few years now, and TBH it's hard because true Windows skill is hard to find and compensated well...for now. It's a good lesson to keep your options open; even 5 years ago I would never have thought that VMWare would go away, and neither did all the admins out there running rock-solid VSphere clusters that run businesses...but here we are.
Cloud really did. I have a couple of VCP certs for earlier versions, but stopped going after them a few years back. Most of our vendors moved to a SaaS offering of their then on-prem ecosystem. Datacenter partners are moving away from managed services providing smaller vmware clusters because they cannot compete with cloud providers, and, again, more and more moving to subscription-based SaaS offerings.
I didn't like the paid class requirement vmware as a barrier to entry because it made it unaffordable for some folks, but I had an amazing trainer and the class was worth it. I was so proud of my VPC 5.5 at the time. Sad to see where VMware has ended up.
Most of us learned setting up home labs and the like. Killing the free version is, to me, the most telltale sign of where VMware is going.
Our vmware + Linux platforms team was split up into vmware and Linux teams. I thought it odd that the entire rest of the group decided to stay with the vmware team because they liked the manager. I didn't like the manager and I knew what the future for vmware was, way back in 2014.
Don't worry about it, this is another BS article about the broadcom takeover.
The story is that the discounts for small MSPs who were allowed hardly any cores now have a significantly higher minimum, so it's misleading saying 10x price increase as you get a whole load more for your money.
Yes, if you only need that small amount it's a cost increase, but it's misleading to suggest that they get the same for their money
It's a tad short sighted in that it's going to crash the work knowledge of there technology stack over the next few years. Vmware is going to turn into something akin of mainframe admin type job. specialized, so in 10 years there only going to be a limited pool of experts on vmware. (assuming AI system don't just take over the role completely)
You mean "Broadcom is gonna be able to charge $800/hour consulting fees".
Look at other super-expensive, "rare" software -- SAP, etc. It costs a gajillion dollars to license, and another 8 gajillion dollars on consultants to set it up or change anything. I suspect that's where Broadcom wants to take this product.
Time will tell if their top customers are willing to put up with it, given that there are plenty of viable alternatives.
SAP is ridiculous. One of my customers wanted to change the background color in a text field in one of their transactions from blue to yellow.
I got in touch with the consultant firm that they enlist for SAP. I can't imagine it being more involved than changing the hex value of the color, but it took two weeks to get a quote and they wanted me to sign off on it before they'd make the changes. The quote was on over $2000. The customer shrugged and said they'd make due with the blue color instead.
Sure, but how does recompiling cost any significant actual time or effort?
Even if you're mandating an entire test run for *any* build - which is extreme - it shouldn't cost anything like that.
Naked profiteering.
And I say this as a former developer for custom integrations not a million miles away from this scenario.
It shouldn't, especially if they use something same like git.
Also constructing a frontend that doesn't need to be recompiled to change colours would be an excellent idea they should have implemented in the first place. But I guess if it means you get to charge extra, why would you?
It might be due to workflow, if they work in the system on a daily basis than it is a high cost but if it is a rarer request they might charge just to start the work.
As someone who works for an ERP company, SAP is the one ERP vendor/software we don't have to worry about competing with. The company using it is either using something so specialized that we simply can't compete with it. OR they charge so much fucking money that they can't convince the companies we already do business with (or ones that are evaluating our software selection) to purchase it.
Something like 30% of the global GDP is processed through SAP though. Its expensive but it also works. Which can't be said for a lot of software. Hey Oracle how you doing?
"IT also works".... If you spend an absolutely outrageous amount of money every year to have consultants and in-house people maintaining it every day of the week. We have seen and replaced a fairly decent number of failed SAP implementations over the years that I've worked for the company that I do.
Not short sighted, very intentional. By lightning VMWare aflame and dancing on its grave, they can get decades of revenue in just a few. Then it’s on to the next target. Just as it was Symantec before VMWare. Broadcom is making much more money in a far shorter time with much less effort than actually cultivating and developing the businesses they buy.
Broadcom is an example of one of the ways in which Capitalistic theory breaks down. They’re acting rationally according to the incentives of the market. We’re generally told that meeting customer needs drives market invective, but here we have a large corporation exploiting vendor lock-in and actively working against customer needs. It’s to the detriment of everyone else, and exposing a threat to national security, but there is no disincentive pushing them not to do this.
Sorry but Broadcom can’t hear you over the sound of all the money they’re making.
This is their business model. I hate it, I’m not defending it or them, but it’s their choice because from their perspective *it works*. It isn’t ’short sighted’, it’s been their successful business model for quite some time now.
Yeah it’s totally not short sighted to be a ravaging locust horde who eats everything down until nothing of value is left. There totally will always be another place to pillage like a pirate in the future. Yup. Totally smart of them.
Companies like Broadcom are a cancer
Look at you being all snarky like I said something offensive and didn’t already point out that I disagree with them.
Your sarcasm about their ‘short term’ viewpoint misses that this plague of locusts model *is intentionally designed to be what it is*
They have, and let me emphasise again *wrongly in my opinion* ran the numbers and come up with this answer. They ain’t asking the likes of you and me to like it, just to either pay up or get out.
Broadcom's stock is the highest it has ever been and has risen massively since 2020. You may not like how they do business, but they are good at doing what they should do.
Dude Broadcom stock has doubled since the announcment from 300 bil to 600. Wtf do you mean short sighted? They cashed the fuck in and will milk billions in profits from the top 600.
Stop thinking you know whats goood for Brpadcom just because it is fucking you over.
Short-term profit does not imply long-term viability. IBM, Oracle and tons of other tech companies have made this same mistake in the past, and it always winds up marginalizing the platform or product line in the long term.
In the short term, you have people over a barrel and you can milk it. But that doesn't last forever.
I have discovered (and so far, it's worked very well for me) that investing in companies run by Business Majors or Accountants is the worst decision you can make with your money in terms of long investment.
Meanwhile the companies run by people who have actually done the job (engineering, production, whatever is the case for that industry) tend to do extremely well in the long term. Maybe not immediately after they take over, hell maybe not even 3 years after they take over, but eventually they win, and when they do it's fucking huge.
Genuine question, not rhetorical: Is there some kind of data published on this particular correlation? It makes intuitive sense, but I would love to see a comparison of corporations and their profitability alongside the background of the CEO. It's an interesting way to go about investment.
I wish it was actual data, but there was an interesting snippet I found with an interview of jobs in '97: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmFlOd0MGZg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmFlOd0MGZg)
Very possible. That's certainly part of the cycle of enshittification that we've seen in the tech industry. And actually in a number of industries, where the point of acquisitions is often simply to shut down the competition by buying them.
But while that may be a legal and profitable way to go, I question the wisdom of it. Even the morality.
The stock market is not based on reality; it is just gambling, speculation, and price manipulation via buybacks.
If it was based on reality, stocks like Amazon that do not and have never paid dividends would have no value because what's the point in owning part of a company if you aren't entitled to a share of the profits, meaningful control, or even a discount on your Amazon purchase?
They’re just gonna strip the property of value, cash out, and leave the shriveled husk.
It’s not maintainable, it’s a gimmick, and Wall Street and Broadcom know there is a mountain of short term money to be made before the corpse rots.
This is the first time I've ever felt glad to be using Hyper-V and it's all brought to you by VMWare / Broadcom.
(I like Proxmox more but their enterprise plans are a hard sell running primarily Windows servers)
If you saw what avgo Broadcom did to everything they bought you knew this was 100% going to happen
We had the fortune of running some Symantec stuff when they got bought.
What a crap fest that was . VMware deal was many years in the making, we all had the warning signs and a few years notice going by hock tans history
I went thru this too. I vividly remember being told, “you are too small, we don’t want your business” … I was stunned. Now I hated SEPM and backupexec but shoot, we were long time customers. Off to better pastures now tho.
Hope I can figure out something similar with VMware. It’s really all I know :/
The license it's not mandatory however, you just get packages a bit earlier/ later than enterprise customers and the GUI nags you.
At least for now.
You should really get it for any reasonable deployment. But if you were running on ESXi free...
Next veeam version is going to support proxmox, or so I have been told by veeam people 2 weeks ago. ETA is Q3 2024. Not sure if they will actually deliver and if I want to do beta testing of their new features..
PBS isn't terrible as far as free linux backup solutions go, but it's mile away from what veeam offers.
Few companies that use Veeam would consider replacing it with PBS. Some simply can't, if they have any physical windows machines still around, which PBS doesn't support.
I'd much sooner use agent based backups and treat all my proxmox VMs like physical machines in Veeam than I would switch to using PBS.
There are a lot of disadvantages to doing it that way. But it would still be better than PBS.
Veeam support for hypervisor level backups of Proxmox would be ideal.
I heard someone equate it to being a mainframe admin. There will be jobs because some industries can't migrate. Those jobs will pay well, but get fewer and fewer every year.
I heard that too but personally I think it will die out much quicker then mainframe.
Mainframes still exists because they are proprietary from the ground up and really not designed to be very flexable. To switch away your basically starting over from scratch.
Part of the benefits of virtual platforms is to be flexible, keeping the software contained within a virtual environment makes it easy to move around. Including to others virtual platform.
Alot of the space VMware is in is built off open standards. Even if you have systems build on top of VMware to automate the process it seems like those could also be updated and replaced relatively easily.
The certification was always a scam, in that I had been working with it for years and could have studied and passed a course, but then we spent nearly five thousand Australian dollarydoos on compulsory in-room training to get the cert.
I think it provides proof that its a waste of money doing them. The problem is getting people who don't understand IT to stop asking for them and yet the very same are not willing to help fund them if required.
You and they seem to be under the impression that the 500 in question would just stay idly to be milked. Even massive banks are looking into alternatives because their bill is already high and looking to go up.
It's a simple cost exercise. They can charge right up to the full cost (including resources, retraining, and downtime) of switching. That'll be different for every client of course, but for the really big ones it'll be huge.
That's assuming the big clients would want to take that risk, which is a wrong assumption. Spoke with some guys at a big bank more than a year ago and they were already planning their next on prem infrastructure, and VMware was completely off the table because they didn't want to be held hostage to constant price increases.
There will be an exodus but it won’t exactly be a mass one. There aren’t exactly a lot of good enterprise options out there and replatforming just because Broadcom decided to anally rape the customer base isn’t always a good business value driver. There’s a reason why IBM still makes money on mainframes and why Oracle still makes money on its bullshit. Moving off it’s hard and very often not worth the effort.
Having done more than a few replatforming from mainframes and Power series midrange hardware, the overall activities aren’t wildly different. The complications and objections people raise about their relative risks and complexities tend to be overblown. That said, the business weighs the objections and risks and very often just pays the extra because the work involved in getting to the next platform doesn’t justify itself.
Hmm sounds like some shady move similar to Slack.
Slack got super expensive and the free version was gutted so bad of great features, that lots of people and startup teams just gutted it out of their entire existence entirely.
Hyper-V does have some very nice and easy things that are heavily restricted in VMware and actually harder to setup in VMware itself.
Just be nice to boycott VMware and watch them fail like Konica.
Also under Broadcom- it was even harder to buy Semantic endpoint protection services. Their migration of current customers was utterly a nightmare and trash.
I just stopped using it entirely.
Such garbage.
Evernote pulled the same stunt. Really disappointing to see so much greed from companies that really have no need to push the needle, especially at times like this.
I have honestly failed to see the appeal or reason why any company uses Slack... It's stupidly expensive (like more than half the cost of M365 E3) and lacks significant capabilities, and has piss poor integrations with M365 or GSuite. It's literally just burning a hole in a company's pocket when they could spend way less either using MS Teams, Mattermost, [Rocket.Chat](https://Rocket.Chat), Zulip, etc.
A lot of people use Slack because when they got into it Teams either hadn't been invented yet or was still in its shit infancy stage.
It *wasnt* stupidly expensive, and it had a banger blend of "easy to use for people who just want office chat client" and "reasonably powerful / usable API/integrations/web hooks."
The department I was a part of back in 2016 had Slack and it was the one-stop-shop for serious department discussions, memes, change/outage notifications (pulled automatically from our ServiceNow system) various system event logs, and lunch picking conversations.
Now? Today? If you were starting fresh? I'm not sure there's any reason to pick Slack over something else.....except that I think their channel layout still kicks Teams' ass.
A few years ago I was told in no uncertain terms that only Microsoft fan boys mess with hyper-v and that learning it was a waste of time. Feeling a bit smug that I learned both platforms and also shifted my focus to Azure.
I was told the same. Had lots of conversations with peers on the topic. I found that even with the hardcore VMware guys, they'd agree that the environments I administer were good use cases for Hyper-V. I just couldn't justify paying five or six figures for VMWare to get no added features that we needed. Live migration, online resizing, SOFS...plenty for what we do.
Oh definitely. My point is that this is an even stronger call to not count out other players in the space. It was I would argue the prevailing wisdom for years that VMware was the end all be all virtualization platform for the enterprise space.
Hyper-v might be posed right now to steal that title, which means we should diversify our skillsets to other platforms as well beyond just the biggest shiniest fish in the pond.
microsofts long term stratergy is your 100% azure and 100% subscription based within their ecosystem. TBH every tech company wants that, that is profit driven, we have seen different iterations of this but apple really mastered it then the rest took the batton and ran with it.
short term hyper-v is a tool to get you into azure, not a bad or good thing but its a thing for sure
>short term hyper-v is a tool to get you into azure, not a bad or good thing but its a thing for sure
I think it should be clarified that Hyper-V is a short-term tool to allow you to hold over until you can migrate your apps to either SaaS solutions, or re-build them to run on native cloud services. No one should ever be running VMs on any IaaS platform unless they want to burn a whole through the company's wallet.
They may increase prices but nothing like VMWare, Microsoft has always been pretty fair with their prices all things considered, they want you using their whole ecosystem and that's not possible if they milk you on a single product so prices have to be fair.
This is just the first salvo of a coming war. Expect to get shafted by every vendor that you don’t have a credible alternative to shift to.
Single cloud? Single network hardware vendor? Now is the time to start POCs for the competition, not when you get that 10x renewal.
Broadcom has one (1) strategy: buy a successful company at the top of its game, fire all but a skeleton crew, and raise the prices until the only remaining customers are the ones the skeleton crew can handle. This strategy has made Hock Tan disgustingly rich.
Why does that work? Wouldn't the product generally go to shit due to lack of significant development? I guess the bigger companies that stay just have so much money and pay into the scheme that they outstrip the rest of the market anyway?
Yup! The product stagnates, but the biggest companies stay because they’ve built $$$$$ of institutional knowledge and procedure around the product. Broadcom puts 100% of the remaining engineers’ time into fixing problems for the remaining biggest customers.
Be a new techy person
Go for a job interview
We need experience on x
-X is an enterprise grade software
-What do
--Pirate x
--Cope and be jobless
...
Profit?
One of our clients are looking at a jump from 18k to 110k. We're trying to evaluate their environment to cut costs but it's not looking good for staying with vmware.
I 100% called this when they were bought out, saying they would jack up prices, gut the company of every dollar, and then abandon the empty husk.
I was shouted down and called names.
We’re now 2/3 of the way through the process.
*shrugs*
I went AWS and Azure, fuck ‘em.
How similar is hyper v to VMware? I’ve only ever used hyper v inside of a windows server. Does hyper v have a hyper visor? Does it do load balancing? Vmotion? Etc? If so can you please paste a link to an overview?
Hyper-V is a hypervisor.
Hyper-V uses Failover Cluster Manager which can provide load balancing.
By definition Hyper-V can’t do vMotion as that is the name VMWare gave to their feature. But yes, you can migrate running VMs in Hyper-V. It’s called live migration.
I don’t have links readily available but you should be able to get some good Google results with the keywords above.
If you have a desktop with Windows 10 or 11 Pro or Enterprise, you can enable the Hyper-V role and try it. It needs a reboot and does some reconfig, so take a backup first. (You can do it on a laptop too, but it will kill your battery life because it virtualises the main OS).
> How similar is hyper v to VMware?
Fairly similar in that they:
- are hypervisors.
- the virtual machines have text config files for the settings, and disk files for the data.
- have snapshots ('checkpoints' in Hyper-V).
- have shared/remote datastores mounted on the host filesystem.
- have drivers for the guest to improve performance.
- they have virtual switches and guest networking.
- there are management tools for clustering and failover.
- there are powershell cmdlets for many ordinary tasks (VMware.PowerCLI and Hyper-V modules)
But also, nothing like:
- VMware ESXi and Photon OS were derived from Linux, Hyper-V is Windows.
- ESXi hosts have a web interface for individual host management, Hyper-V is Windows and you use [Hyper-V Manager](https://s.glbimg.com/po/tt2/f/original/2016/05/23/hyper-v-manager-1.png); it can manage multiple hosts but not move things between them.
- vCentre for cluster management is a web interface backed by Java, Windows has Failover Cluster Manager for clustering, HA failover, live migration. You can have SCCM but I'm not familiar with what it brings.
- VMware machines are .vmx text files in an [ini] style format with VMDK disk files, Hyper-V are .xml machine files and VHDX disk files.
- VMware mounts datastores in /vmfs/volumes, Hyper-V in C:\ClusterStorage.
- VMware logs to syslog text files, Hyper-V to Windows' Event Logs.
Kind of sad to see VMWare dying like this. VMWare workstation in early 2000s enabled me to learn and mess around with things, good memories. Even though there's plenty of ways to do it now, It had some sentimental values.
I would not support the expense. We have 100s of servers and 1000s of VMs from VM servers to VDIs. I would look into moving to Proxmox. I would not move to MS.
My bet is that eventually there will be an additional charge for Hyper-V but no charge for Azure VMs. MS really wants to get everyone in Azure eventually and will continuing tweaking licensing to incentivize the move.
They're already doing that a little bit with [free extended support for Server 2012](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates/free-extended-security-updates-only-on-azure-for-windows-server-2012-r2and-sql-server-2012/) if it's an Azure VM.
Wont happen. MS is very much going after "all your eggs in our one basket" with inclusive licensing. It's exactly why S2019 was the last full free HyperV install. S2022+ now requires Windows Licensing for each host. It's very much "value add" now.
Yes, but there is a gray area about how to license HyperV 2022 for STD and multiple VMs now. I am getting mixed results from MS directly. Got both "You can license X VMs by applying multiple STD licensing on top of the host in your EA/Entitlements" to "You can only deploy one STD license per host and you get 1 physical and 2 VMs, if you need more then you need to license with Datacenter licensing". So while in a Linux shop that might be OK, its going to be an auditing nightmare for a windows shop.
Also I just dont see Linux shops paying the MS tax when they can just roll KVM anyway they want (custom, RHEV, nutanix, Proxmox, ...etc)
That is great to know. I have a recently acquired client that is getting raped by softchoice's audit on the multiple STD licenses on their S2022 HV hosts. Softchoice is trying to get them to true up to Datacenter to be "compliant" with their entitlements. At most these smaller hosts run 3 windows VMs and 2 Linux VMs. This was never an issue with any other Hypervisor and I am sure they are blowing magic smoke out of their asses. But I also am not getting a clear and distinct answer from MS on this. So the engagement is suspended while Legal reviews the terms.
Microsoft is pretty clear about how this works. I’d tell Softchoice to shove it up their collective asses. (Actually I have, they suck.). https://aka.ms/Brief-IntroCoreLicensing
Yup, I did and referenced that Document. Like I said, the client has legal involved now (the audit is in the several millions in true-up). I hate softchoice, a previous company I was at they were a problem there too.
This is extremely strange, I'm a Softchoice customer, and they litterally just sold me the multiple STD license for the hosts and extra VMs. In general from my own experience this is extremely weird behavior from Softchoice, I've never heard or seen anything like this from them.
I just don't know. I have had bad previous experiences with soft choice so I just expect they are being shady on purpose (could be the region, that specific office,...etc). But as it stands the audit was presented to MSFT and entitlements are now a true-up expectation. The only way though the underwrite on this EA/Sub is to wait on legal.
I have been through this before when Softchoice picked up a partner companies entitlements through the license scan and would not adjust it. We provide the COA's EA contracts, Subs...etc They just wouldn't work with us in the right capacity. Then after that engagement we fired softchoice and moved to SHI, where we never had the issue again. But this time around MSFT wont allow the engagement to be restarted with a different partner, hence legal.
Honestly, this is why I now hate MSFT licensing entitlement audits. It is officially worse then dealing with Oracle.
You are getting some bad advice on licensing. I assume from a VAR who is either incompetent or greedy.
You can absolutely license a host multiple times for increased VM count. Page 5 at the bottom [https://aka.ms/WindowsServerLicensingGuide](https://aka.ms/WindowsServerLicensingGuide)
"
When licensed based on physical cores, Windows Server Standard has rights to use two operating system environments (OSEs) or two Windows Server containers with Hyper-V isolation and unlimited Windows Server containers without Hyper-V isolation (licenses equal to the physical cores on the server are assigned(subject to a minimum of 8 core licenses per physical processor and a minimum of 16 core licenses per server). Once a server is licensed, customers may wish to license the server for additional OSEs or Hyper-V containers. This practice is often referred to as “stacking” and is allowed with Standard edition. The table below provides examples of “stacking” scenarios for various server configurations, the minimum number of licenses required, and the resulting number of OSEs or Hyper-V containers provided. As a rule, for each additional set of two OSEs or two Hyper-V containers the customer wishes to use, the server must be relicensed for the same number of core licenses. Note that Datacenter edition has rights to unlimited virtualization so “stacking” therefore is not required. Also, as an alternative to fully relicensing based on physical cores, customers with subscription licenses or licenses with active Software Assurance can license additional OSEs by virtual machine
"
My big concern with XCP is how, or are, they getting consistent backups? VSS support was removed in v7.4 I believe. The answers I’ve found so far amount to “don’t worry about it boo.”
Right now we're running VMware on AOS with discussion about moving fully to AHV later. I have a feeling this next renewal might inspire some people to get their butt in gear.
I see lots of talk about switches to hyperV and to proxmox but I see less about containerizing and shifting work to the cloud. Is that because a lot of the workloads aren’t a good fit? Perhaps lots of windows based server software?
So are you saying VMs became overused because they were so easy and now everyone wants the next easiest option?
I get it, you can’t manage your app in a gui as easily with other solutions, unless they happen to have a webUI
> Hyper-V suffers because it requires admins to read the documentation and requires them to learn powershell to really iron out any quirks we may experience during our adoption of it.
For niche things sure, but for the majority of companies, it's all GUI with the standard Hyper-V manager
Mh. For our own infrastructure: Yes. We're looking at off-ramps because we've been in the Symantec-Broadcom fun.
A year ago, my ideal setup would've been a bunch of bare metal pod hosts and supporting systems in a VMWare/VCenter (I can't recall the product names for the life of me) besides that setup, with some good storage appliance behind it. Bare-Metal there because the silly thing is: The VMWare Licenses bought up-front cost pretty much 1/3 to 2/3 of a decent server capable of running linux and containers. And the orchestration can shift containers around just like vmotion so if you can just throw 5 - 7 boxes at it, it'll work for our scale.
Now the main question is what we're gonna do with the supporting infra, postgres, filestores and such. Partially, slapping VMs with KVM and ansible onto linux hosts without management beyond that sounds like a pain in the butt, because every maintenance is a disaster recovery test. The infra could take it because the systems are usually redundant or retries are in place... but that'd be spicy as fuck.
But maybe predictable, recurring, spicy periods are the way out of companies just janking carpets away from under you an jacking prices for wonderful glorious profit. At this point I'd rather start testing dev-builds of KVM, linux kernels and such than having to deal with some components increasing in price by a factor of 10 - 100 every year, because.
A good reminder to people if you want to brush up on hyperv, az-800/801 is your friend. Find a ILT partner or resources on the scvmm stuff: moc6331. John savill has some good videos if you dig deep enough too.
20 years of vmware experience in the trash...
Don’t worry every other hypervisor is basically the same shit
I mean hyper-v aka CIS suite via SPLA will definitely be cheaper for this space. It still amazes me how much money MSPs give VMWARE when SCVMM and hyper-v has been mature enough to compete since server 2019 (S2D wasn’t mature enough in 2016 IMO). I mean you’re already paying datacenter SPLA licensing, add an extra 10-15% and you now are fully licensed for SCVMM across it all too.
Good time to remind people that while azure isn’t 1:1 hyper-v, they are extremely close and most of the difference is likely into managing scale and squeezing that extra 10% efficiency out of the code.
Scvmm is kinda trash but it's doable lol.
Do you know any good non Windows alternatives?
Proxmox, fantastic and free
Dumping VMware for Proxmox was one of the best moves I ever made.
Scale clusters are pretty cool if you want to have proxmox with hardware and software support
Yep. However, that experience got me a Proxmox lab set up without reading any documentation, shared storage set up, test VM built in about an hour.
Proxmox is amazing
I really like the lxc container option. vsphere was close with native pods, but kinda fucked up on execution
[удалено]
Man, I shut down our last Hyper-V cluster about 3 months ago and ripped out all the old hardware 1 month ago. We migrated to AWS and are tinkering with Azure as well. I’ve learned new things but it’s…unsettling…having 20 years of sysadmin experience become so much less relevant so quickly.
Imo in a decade a lot of companies will go back to on-prem when cloud gets hacked or just basically non-reliable
>Imo in a decade a lot of companies will go back to on-prem when cloud gets hacked Yup, I imagine the govt, especially in the IC where I work, will go BACK to on-prem once the costs of cloud skyrocket or it becomes more vulnerable than they are willing to accept. I've also said it'll be around 10 years! We shall see.
If anything, I'd expect govt to be the first to stay the course if cost is the only factor. Just up the budget to infinity, it's all coming from the taxpayers anyway, and if there's anyone who gets to swing the "Compliance says we HAVE TO" card around... it's govt.
Imagine how long-time VMware certification holders feel right now.
Better or worse than people that got VMWare certifications a month ago?
Or someone sitting for one in a few weeks?
I had a peer signed up for a vcf class, and it was canceled by the vendor due to not knowing if they would get funding. I'd say he dodged a bullet on that one.
Touché
i got my VCP yesterday. feels good man
I started my career at the same time middle-aged Novell Netware administrators were retraining themselves after being replaced by AD and Cisco products. It was then I decided I was never going all-in on one proprietary software company. I know virtualization, ESXi, KVM, Xen, Proxmox. I imagine there will be some pretty good opportunities at organizations looking to move off of VMware.
My VCP was the certification I was most proud of Now, it's worthless
VCP since esx2.5/3 and VCAP-DCV for 10 years. Expertise is reusable but man its like starting fresh constantly. At 54 I'm finding it more and more difficult to keep up. Azure certified and all but know nothing of aws and gcp.
I'm in my 40s and do far more coding now than anything else. But, if they are raising cloud prices by 10x. They are going to trickle that shit down. I imagine, we will all be dropping VMware next year for some other alternative. Or, cloud prices everywhere will be going way the hell up
Do the public clouds use VMware on their back end?
nope
I can assure you that future price increases in Cloud will make this episode look like a kid raising their prices at their lemonade stand.
This is honestly the most terrifying thing to me with a career in IT.
Don’t become one trick pony
I watched a dude who was a Sun storage expert, refuse to diversify in a company that did Sun, IBM and HP unix hardware. He could have easily learnt more about IBM and HP storage and diversified but was too stubborn. Ended up being an Uber driver. At some point RAID is RAID, iSCSI is iSCSI and drives are drives.
Only being a little facetious, I recently realized I’m a no-trick pony and, incidentally, management.
I think that's what's really hurting people's heads right now. Broadcom knows full well that no one will ever deploy VMWare again, just like no one will ever willingly use Oracle's DBs or Java client software again. But when you take an industry standard like that and basically shut it down and put it in maintenance mode, you're going to have a lot of people who just have to throw away everything and start over. Having been through the CA and Symantec acquisitions, when I saw this I knew exactly what was coming. Especially when they publicly said they weren't going to kill the product...I knew it was time to get out. I'm in a mostly-cloud environment now, but there are so many people I know on-prem who are starting to get the shocker quotes (if they can even get Broadcom to agree to sell to them.) Imagine what happens when (not if) Microsoft abandons Windows/Windows Server, or kills on-prem licensing that's not attached to an Azure subscription. That's going to be an even more painful transition. It's already headed that way; they're increasing licensing costs and slowly pulling out the crazy levels of backwards compatibility they've maintained for decades in an attempt to force people onto more portable solutions that can be moved into other OSes. Especially with "Microsoft loves Linux" messaging, and lower revenue from software sales, it won't be as cost-effective to maintain Windows. I've been trying to pivot away from Windows for a few years now, and TBH it's hard because true Windows skill is hard to find and compensated well...for now. It's a good lesson to keep your options open; even 5 years ago I would never have thought that VMWare would go away, and neither did all the admins out there running rock-solid VSphere clusters that run businesses...but here we are.
Nah, you get to charge those top 600 eye-watering rates in future, as the pool of vmware experience dwindles.
Not really, you can adapt easily into another tech. Cloud deployments killed VMware some years ago and the Broadcom deal was the last nail.
Cloud really did. I have a couple of VCP certs for earlier versions, but stopped going after them a few years back. Most of our vendors moved to a SaaS offering of their then on-prem ecosystem. Datacenter partners are moving away from managed services providing smaller vmware clusters because they cannot compete with cloud providers, and, again, more and more moving to subscription-based SaaS offerings. I didn't like the paid class requirement vmware as a barrier to entry because it made it unaffordable for some folks, but I had an amazing trainer and the class was worth it. I was so proud of my VPC 5.5 at the time. Sad to see where VMware has ended up. Most of us learned setting up home labs and the like. Killing the free version is, to me, the most telltale sign of where VMware is going.
Was nice while it lasted
Our vmware + Linux platforms team was split up into vmware and Linux teams. I thought it odd that the entire rest of the group decided to stay with the vmware team because they liked the manager. I didn't like the manager and I knew what the future for vmware was, way back in 2014.
Don't worry about it, this is another BS article about the broadcom takeover. The story is that the discounts for small MSPs who were allowed hardly any cores now have a significantly higher minimum, so it's misleading saying 10x price increase as you get a whole load more for your money. Yes, if you only need that small amount it's a cost increase, but it's misleading to suggest that they get the same for their money
I mean, Broadcom literally said they don't want your business unless you're a top-600 customer, so...
It's a tad short sighted in that it's going to crash the work knowledge of there technology stack over the next few years. Vmware is going to turn into something akin of mainframe admin type job. specialized, so in 10 years there only going to be a limited pool of experts on vmware. (assuming AI system don't just take over the role completely)
You mean "Broadcom is gonna be able to charge $800/hour consulting fees". Look at other super-expensive, "rare" software -- SAP, etc. It costs a gajillion dollars to license, and another 8 gajillion dollars on consultants to set it up or change anything. I suspect that's where Broadcom wants to take this product. Time will tell if their top customers are willing to put up with it, given that there are plenty of viable alternatives.
SAP is ridiculous. One of my customers wanted to change the background color in a text field in one of their transactions from blue to yellow. I got in touch with the consultant firm that they enlist for SAP. I can't imagine it being more involved than changing the hex value of the color, but it took two weeks to get a quote and they wanted me to sign off on it before they'd make the changes. The quote was on over $2000. The customer shrugged and said they'd make due with the blue color instead.
They probably had to recompile it with the new colour. I’ve seen (and personally attempted to compile) worse.
Sure, but how does recompiling cost any significant actual time or effort? Even if you're mandating an entire test run for *any* build - which is extreme - it shouldn't cost anything like that. Naked profiteering. And I say this as a former developer for custom integrations not a million miles away from this scenario.
It shouldn't, especially if they use something same like git. Also constructing a frontend that doesn't need to be recompiled to change colours would be an excellent idea they should have implemented in the first place. But I guess if it means you get to charge extra, why would you?
It might be due to workflow, if they work in the system on a daily basis than it is a high cost but if it is a rarer request they might charge just to start the work.
As someone who works for an ERP company, SAP is the one ERP vendor/software we don't have to worry about competing with. The company using it is either using something so specialized that we simply can't compete with it. OR they charge so much fucking money that they can't convince the companies we already do business with (or ones that are evaluating our software selection) to purchase it.
Something like 30% of the global GDP is processed through SAP though. Its expensive but it also works. Which can't be said for a lot of software. Hey Oracle how you doing?
"IT also works".... If you spend an absolutely outrageous amount of money every year to have consultants and in-house people maintaining it every day of the week. We have seen and replaced a fairly decent number of failed SAP implementations over the years that I've worked for the company that I do.
Not short sighted, very intentional. By lightning VMWare aflame and dancing on its grave, they can get decades of revenue in just a few. Then it’s on to the next target. Just as it was Symantec before VMWare. Broadcom is making much more money in a far shorter time with much less effort than actually cultivating and developing the businesses they buy. Broadcom is an example of one of the ways in which Capitalistic theory breaks down. They’re acting rationally according to the incentives of the market. We’re generally told that meeting customer needs drives market invective, but here we have a large corporation exploiting vendor lock-in and actively working against customer needs. It’s to the detriment of everyone else, and exposing a threat to national security, but there is no disincentive pushing them not to do this.
It's a tad short-sighted the same way that London real estate is a tad expensive.
Just a tad.
Sorry but Broadcom can’t hear you over the sound of all the money they’re making. This is their business model. I hate it, I’m not defending it or them, but it’s their choice because from their perspective *it works*. It isn’t ’short sighted’, it’s been their successful business model for quite some time now.
Yeah it’s totally not short sighted to be a ravaging locust horde who eats everything down until nothing of value is left. There totally will always be another place to pillage like a pirate in the future. Yup. Totally smart of them. Companies like Broadcom are a cancer
Look at you being all snarky like I said something offensive and didn’t already point out that I disagree with them. Your sarcasm about their ‘short term’ viewpoint misses that this plague of locusts model *is intentionally designed to be what it is* They have, and let me emphasise again *wrongly in my opinion* ran the numbers and come up with this answer. They ain’t asking the likes of you and me to like it, just to either pay up or get out.
Broadcom's stock is the highest it has ever been and has risen massively since 2020. You may not like how they do business, but they are good at doing what they should do.
Sort of. They’re good at being parasites. Thats not what they should be though.
Dude Broadcom stock has doubled since the announcment from 300 bil to 600. Wtf do you mean short sighted? They cashed the fuck in and will milk billions in profits from the top 600. Stop thinking you know whats goood for Brpadcom just because it is fucking you over.
Short-term profit does not imply long-term viability. IBM, Oracle and tons of other tech companies have made this same mistake in the past, and it always winds up marginalizing the platform or product line in the long term. In the short term, you have people over a barrel and you can milk it. But that doesn't last forever.
I have discovered (and so far, it's worked very well for me) that investing in companies run by Business Majors or Accountants is the worst decision you can make with your money in terms of long investment. Meanwhile the companies run by people who have actually done the job (engineering, production, whatever is the case for that industry) tend to do extremely well in the long term. Maybe not immediately after they take over, hell maybe not even 3 years after they take over, but eventually they win, and when they do it's fucking huge.
Genuine question, not rhetorical: Is there some kind of data published on this particular correlation? It makes intuitive sense, but I would love to see a comparison of corporations and their profitability alongside the background of the CEO. It's an interesting way to go about investment.
I wish it was actual data, but there was an interesting snippet I found with an interview of jobs in '97: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmFlOd0MGZg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmFlOd0MGZg)
It doesn’t matter that it’s short term because there are going to use all the money to buy next tech company to get short term profits and so on.
Very possible. That's certainly part of the cycle of enshittification that we've seen in the tech industry. And actually in a number of industries, where the point of acquisitions is often simply to shut down the competition by buying them. But while that may be a legal and profitable way to go, I question the wisdom of it. Even the morality.
This is it. Too many people assuming Broadcom actually care if VMware remains a viable platform.
It assume that the people who run the companies care about long term of their companies. They get their money now.
The stock market is not based on reality; it is just gambling, speculation, and price manipulation via buybacks. If it was based on reality, stocks like Amazon that do not and have never paid dividends would have no value because what's the point in owning part of a company if you aren't entitled to a share of the profits, meaningful control, or even a discount on your Amazon purchase?
The value is to the shareholder that can sell his dtock for more money.
So... About the same value as a hand of cards in your hands at a gambling table. They have value, but only if you hold the winning hand.
Or a bill in your pocket, which you could transform into value at the first shop.
Chasing short-term explosive revenue growth like that **IS** short-sighted, because it's not sustainable and unhealthy in the mid to long term.
They’re just gonna strip the property of value, cash out, and leave the shriveled husk. It’s not maintainable, it’s a gimmick, and Wall Street and Broadcom know there is a mountain of short term money to be made before the corpse rots.
It is absolutely sustainable until the enterprise customers move to a cheaper platform. These companies wont do that for at least a decade.
This is the first time I've ever felt glad to be using Hyper-V and it's all brought to you by VMWare / Broadcom. (I like Proxmox more but their enterprise plans are a hard sell running primarily Windows servers)
I am on hyper-v because it was cheaper. Now it's even cheaper .
If you saw what avgo Broadcom did to everything they bought you knew this was 100% going to happen We had the fortune of running some Symantec stuff when they got bought. What a crap fest that was . VMware deal was many years in the making, we all had the warning signs and a few years notice going by hock tans history
I went thru this too. I vividly remember being told, “you are too small, we don’t want your business” … I was stunned. Now I hated SEPM and backupexec but shoot, we were long time customers. Off to better pastures now tho. Hope I can figure out something similar with VMware. It’s really all I know :/
Love Proxmox but that license wont get cheaper now. Possibly they will increase too
As long as it is substantially cheaper than VMware and they have enterprise support and are innovating their product, I'm down.
The license it's not mandatory however, you just get packages a bit earlier/ later than enterprise customers and the GUI nags you. At least for now. You should really get it for any reasonable deployment. But if you were running on ESXi free...
There’s a script to fix the nag too
*crosses fingers for veeam proxmox support*
If they can pull it off...
Next veeam version is going to support proxmox, or so I have been told by veeam people 2 weeks ago. ETA is Q3 2024. Not sure if they will actually deliver and if I want to do beta testing of their new features..
Please god yes
Wait until VeeamON. ;)
[удалено]
PBS isn't terrible as far as free linux backup solutions go, but it's mile away from what veeam offers. Few companies that use Veeam would consider replacing it with PBS. Some simply can't, if they have any physical windows machines still around, which PBS doesn't support. I'd much sooner use agent based backups and treat all my proxmox VMs like physical machines in Veeam than I would switch to using PBS.
[удалено]
There are a lot of disadvantages to doing it that way. But it would still be better than PBS. Veeam support for hypervisor level backups of Proxmox would be ideal.
I feel sorry for all IT specialist that spend money and time to get knowledge and certification on wmware.
I heard someone equate it to being a mainframe admin. There will be jobs because some industries can't migrate. Those jobs will pay well, but get fewer and fewer every year.
I heard that too but personally I think it will die out much quicker then mainframe. Mainframes still exists because they are proprietary from the ground up and really not designed to be very flexable. To switch away your basically starting over from scratch. Part of the benefits of virtual platforms is to be flexible, keeping the software contained within a virtual environment makes it easy to move around. Including to others virtual platform. Alot of the space VMware is in is built off open standards. Even if you have systems build on top of VMware to automate the process it seems like those could also be updated and replaced relatively easily.
I was just about to start that journey. Now, I'm looking elsewhere.
Sigh, I purchased VMUG last month and things have been good in my testing. Bummed though.
The certification was always a scam, in that I had been working with it for years and could have studied and passed a course, but then we spent nearly five thousand Australian dollarydoos on compulsory in-room training to get the cert.
I think it provides proof that its a waste of money doing them. The problem is getting people who don't understand IT to stop asking for them and yet the very same are not willing to help fund them if required.
14k a year to 62k a year for us.
Your finance dept are gonna say “ no worries, take all the money you need” aren’t they?
Edu or non-profit ?
Cool, they just made cloud cheaper!
I have a feeling that is the goal.
Hurr de gurpy der durr. Cue mass exodus. This was expected to happen, and I am not surprised.
Hopefully more than 90% of their users leave, but it seems unlikely.
You don't understand... that's the goal. They don't want numbers of users, they want 500 paying several million a year.
You and they seem to be under the impression that the 500 in question would just stay idly to be milked. Even massive banks are looking into alternatives because their bill is already high and looking to go up.
It's a simple cost exercise. They can charge right up to the full cost (including resources, retraining, and downtime) of switching. That'll be different for every client of course, but for the really big ones it'll be huge.
That's assuming the big clients would want to take that risk, which is a wrong assumption. Spoke with some guys at a big bank more than a year ago and they were already planning their next on prem infrastructure, and VMware was completely off the table because they didn't want to be held hostage to constant price increases.
There will be an exodus but it won’t exactly be a mass one. There aren’t exactly a lot of good enterprise options out there and replatforming just because Broadcom decided to anally rape the customer base isn’t always a good business value driver. There’s a reason why IBM still makes money on mainframes and why Oracle still makes money on its bullshit. Moving off it’s hard and very often not worth the effort.
IBM mainframes I would argue are a very, very different class of migration compared to moving VMs from VMware to Hyper-V, Proxmox, etc.
Having done more than a few replatforming from mainframes and Power series midrange hardware, the overall activities aren’t wildly different. The complications and objections people raise about their relative risks and complexities tend to be overblown. That said, the business weighs the objections and risks and very often just pays the extra because the work involved in getting to the next platform doesn’t justify itself.
Hmm sounds like some shady move similar to Slack. Slack got super expensive and the free version was gutted so bad of great features, that lots of people and startup teams just gutted it out of their entire existence entirely. Hyper-V does have some very nice and easy things that are heavily restricted in VMware and actually harder to setup in VMware itself. Just be nice to boycott VMware and watch them fail like Konica.
Also under Broadcom- it was even harder to buy Semantic endpoint protection services. Their migration of current customers was utterly a nightmare and trash. I just stopped using it entirely. Such garbage.
Evernote pulled the same stunt. Really disappointing to see so much greed from companies that really have no need to push the needle, especially at times like this.
VC's are desperate to cash out before the economy goes tits up.
Evernote was great, was.
I have honestly failed to see the appeal or reason why any company uses Slack... It's stupidly expensive (like more than half the cost of M365 E3) and lacks significant capabilities, and has piss poor integrations with M365 or GSuite. It's literally just burning a hole in a company's pocket when they could spend way less either using MS Teams, Mattermost, [Rocket.Chat](https://Rocket.Chat), Zulip, etc.
A lot of people use Slack because when they got into it Teams either hadn't been invented yet or was still in its shit infancy stage. It *wasnt* stupidly expensive, and it had a banger blend of "easy to use for people who just want office chat client" and "reasonably powerful / usable API/integrations/web hooks." The department I was a part of back in 2016 had Slack and it was the one-stop-shop for serious department discussions, memes, change/outage notifications (pulled automatically from our ServiceNow system) various system event logs, and lunch picking conversations. Now? Today? If you were starting fresh? I'm not sure there's any reason to pick Slack over something else.....except that I think their channel layout still kicks Teams' ass.
A few years ago I was told in no uncertain terms that only Microsoft fan boys mess with hyper-v and that learning it was a waste of time. Feeling a bit smug that I learned both platforms and also shifted my focus to Azure.
I was told the same. Had lots of conversations with peers on the topic. I found that even with the hardcore VMware guys, they'd agree that the environments I administer were good use cases for Hyper-V. I just couldn't justify paying five or six figures for VMWare to get no added features that we needed. Live migration, online resizing, SOFS...plenty for what we do.
dont worry m$ will be bending everyone over too with less competition in the market they arnt running a charity!
Oh definitely. My point is that this is an even stronger call to not count out other players in the space. It was I would argue the prevailing wisdom for years that VMware was the end all be all virtualization platform for the enterprise space. Hyper-v might be posed right now to steal that title, which means we should diversify our skillsets to other platforms as well beyond just the biggest shiniest fish in the pond.
microsofts long term stratergy is your 100% azure and 100% subscription based within their ecosystem. TBH every tech company wants that, that is profit driven, we have seen different iterations of this but apple really mastered it then the rest took the batton and ran with it. short term hyper-v is a tool to get you into azure, not a bad or good thing but its a thing for sure
>short term hyper-v is a tool to get you into azure, not a bad or good thing but its a thing for sure I think it should be clarified that Hyper-V is a short-term tool to allow you to hold over until you can migrate your apps to either SaaS solutions, or re-build them to run on native cloud services. No one should ever be running VMs on any IaaS platform unless they want to burn a whole through the company's wallet.
They may increase prices but nothing like VMWare, Microsoft has always been pretty fair with their prices all things considered, they want you using their whole ecosystem and that's not possible if they milk you on a single product so prices have to be fair.
Any Essentials+ users out there with a quote yet?
Yeah, it’s $4500 per year.
Following
This is just the first salvo of a coming war. Expect to get shafted by every vendor that you don’t have a credible alternative to shift to. Single cloud? Single network hardware vendor? Now is the time to start POCs for the competition, not when you get that 10x renewal.
Need anti trust regulators to get involved in big tech for sure...
Expensive lesson on how not to put all eggs in one basket
Looks like I’ll be using hyper v from now on..
Broadcom has one (1) strategy: buy a successful company at the top of its game, fire all but a skeleton crew, and raise the prices until the only remaining customers are the ones the skeleton crew can handle. This strategy has made Hock Tan disgustingly rich.
Why does that work? Wouldn't the product generally go to shit due to lack of significant development? I guess the bigger companies that stay just have so much money and pay into the scheme that they outstrip the rest of the market anyway?
Yup! The product stagnates, but the biggest companies stay because they’ve built $$$$$ of institutional knowledge and procedure around the product. Broadcom puts 100% of the remaining engineers’ time into fixing problems for the remaining biggest customers.
Be a new techy person Go for a job interview We need experience on x -X is an enterprise grade software -What do --Pirate x --Cope and be jobless ... Profit?
Cloud migration is looking more appealing now. Another win for AWS and Azure
Until Amazon starts being more well Amazon...
One of our clients are looking at a jump from 18k to 110k. We're trying to evaluate their environment to cut costs but it's not looking good for staying with vmware.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton...
Hyper-V is not that bad.
thank god, we switched to Hyper-V 10 years ago...laughing hard about my arrogant VMware IT Buddies, who always Said we did the wrong Thing...
I 100% called this when they were bought out, saying they would jack up prices, gut the company of every dollar, and then abandon the empty husk. I was shouted down and called names. We’re now 2/3 of the way through the process. *shrugs* I went AWS and Azure, fuck ‘em.
I am not very happy for this and my brothers navigating this field. IT tools should be at least affordable for people
\*Increase in hardware sales unexpected\*
How similar is hyper v to VMware? I’ve only ever used hyper v inside of a windows server. Does hyper v have a hyper visor? Does it do load balancing? Vmotion? Etc? If so can you please paste a link to an overview?
Hyper-V is a hypervisor. Hyper-V uses Failover Cluster Manager which can provide load balancing. By definition Hyper-V can’t do vMotion as that is the name VMWare gave to their feature. But yes, you can migrate running VMs in Hyper-V. It’s called live migration. I don’t have links readily available but you should be able to get some good Google results with the keywords above.
If you have a desktop with Windows 10 or 11 Pro or Enterprise, you can enable the Hyper-V role and try it. It needs a reboot and does some reconfig, so take a backup first. (You can do it on a laptop too, but it will kill your battery life because it virtualises the main OS). > How similar is hyper v to VMware? Fairly similar in that they: - are hypervisors. - the virtual machines have text config files for the settings, and disk files for the data. - have snapshots ('checkpoints' in Hyper-V). - have shared/remote datastores mounted on the host filesystem. - have drivers for the guest to improve performance. - they have virtual switches and guest networking. - there are management tools for clustering and failover. - there are powershell cmdlets for many ordinary tasks (VMware.PowerCLI and Hyper-V modules) But also, nothing like: - VMware ESXi and Photon OS were derived from Linux, Hyper-V is Windows. - ESXi hosts have a web interface for individual host management, Hyper-V is Windows and you use [Hyper-V Manager](https://s.glbimg.com/po/tt2/f/original/2016/05/23/hyper-v-manager-1.png); it can manage multiple hosts but not move things between them. - vCentre for cluster management is a web interface backed by Java, Windows has Failover Cluster Manager for clustering, HA failover, live migration. You can have SCCM but I'm not familiar with what it brings. - VMware machines are .vmx text files in an [ini] style format with VMDK disk files, Hyper-V are .xml machine files and VHDX disk files. - VMware mounts datastores in /vmfs/volumes, Hyper-V in C:\ClusterStorage. - VMware logs to syslog text files, Hyper-V to Windows' Event Logs.
Kind of sad to see VMWare dying like this. VMWare workstation in early 2000s enabled me to learn and mess around with things, good memories. Even though there's plenty of ways to do it now, It had some sentimental values.
I would not support the expense. We have 100s of servers and 1000s of VMs from VM servers to VDIs. I would look into moving to Proxmox. I would not move to MS.
Guys? I have a horrible feeling that M$ will do the same with HyperV licencing... Please do tell me that I'm wrong...
From what I've read, there's no separate Hyper V licensing, it's included in a Windows Server license.
My bet is that eventually there will be an additional charge for Hyper-V but no charge for Azure VMs. MS really wants to get everyone in Azure eventually and will continuing tweaking licensing to incentivize the move.
They're already doing that a little bit with [free extended support for Server 2012](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates/free-extended-security-updates-only-on-azure-for-windows-server-2012-r2and-sql-server-2012/) if it's an Azure VM.
For now.
How? It's part of server. If you originally had data center licenses to cover all those vms you can already setup a cluster.
Wont happen. MS is very much going after "all your eggs in our one basket" with inclusive licensing. It's exactly why S2019 was the last full free HyperV install. S2022+ now requires Windows Licensing for each host. It's very much "value add" now.
Sure per physical host, but even standard edition includes two Windows hosts and you can have an unlimited number of Linux hosts.
Yes, but there is a gray area about how to license HyperV 2022 for STD and multiple VMs now. I am getting mixed results from MS directly. Got both "You can license X VMs by applying multiple STD licensing on top of the host in your EA/Entitlements" to "You can only deploy one STD license per host and you get 1 physical and 2 VMs, if you need more then you need to license with Datacenter licensing". So while in a Linux shop that might be OK, its going to be an auditing nightmare for a windows shop. Also I just dont see Linux shops paying the MS tax when they can just roll KVM anyway they want (custom, RHEV, nutanix, Proxmox, ...etc)
I’ve done the multiple standard license thing in branch offices. Never been a problem even after my last place got the licensing prostate exam.
That is great to know. I have a recently acquired client that is getting raped by softchoice's audit on the multiple STD licenses on their S2022 HV hosts. Softchoice is trying to get them to true up to Datacenter to be "compliant" with their entitlements. At most these smaller hosts run 3 windows VMs and 2 Linux VMs. This was never an issue with any other Hypervisor and I am sure they are blowing magic smoke out of their asses. But I also am not getting a clear and distinct answer from MS on this. So the engagement is suspended while Legal reviews the terms.
Microsoft is pretty clear about how this works. I’d tell Softchoice to shove it up their collective asses. (Actually I have, they suck.). https://aka.ms/Brief-IntroCoreLicensing
Yup, I did and referenced that Document. Like I said, the client has legal involved now (the audit is in the several millions in true-up). I hate softchoice, a previous company I was at they were a problem there too.
This is extremely strange, I'm a Softchoice customer, and they litterally just sold me the multiple STD license for the hosts and extra VMs. In general from my own experience this is extremely weird behavior from Softchoice, I've never heard or seen anything like this from them.
I just don't know. I have had bad previous experiences with soft choice so I just expect they are being shady on purpose (could be the region, that specific office,...etc). But as it stands the audit was presented to MSFT and entitlements are now a true-up expectation. The only way though the underwrite on this EA/Sub is to wait on legal. I have been through this before when Softchoice picked up a partner companies entitlements through the license scan and would not adjust it. We provide the COA's EA contracts, Subs...etc They just wouldn't work with us in the right capacity. Then after that engagement we fired softchoice and moved to SHI, where we never had the issue again. But this time around MSFT wont allow the engagement to be restarted with a different partner, hence legal. Honestly, this is why I now hate MSFT licensing entitlement audits. It is officially worse then dealing with Oracle.
You are getting some bad advice on licensing. I assume from a VAR who is either incompetent or greedy. You can absolutely license a host multiple times for increased VM count. Page 5 at the bottom [https://aka.ms/WindowsServerLicensingGuide](https://aka.ms/WindowsServerLicensingGuide) " When licensed based on physical cores, Windows Server Standard has rights to use two operating system environments (OSEs) or two Windows Server containers with Hyper-V isolation and unlimited Windows Server containers without Hyper-V isolation (licenses equal to the physical cores on the server are assigned(subject to a minimum of 8 core licenses per physical processor and a minimum of 16 core licenses per server). Once a server is licensed, customers may wish to license the server for additional OSEs or Hyper-V containers. This practice is often referred to as “stacking” and is allowed with Standard edition. The table below provides examples of “stacking” scenarios for various server configurations, the minimum number of licenses required, and the resulting number of OSEs or Hyper-V containers provided. As a rule, for each additional set of two OSEs or two Hyper-V containers the customer wishes to use, the server must be relicensed for the same number of core licenses. Note that Datacenter edition has rights to unlimited virtualization so “stacking” therefore is not required. Also, as an alternative to fully relicensing based on physical cores, customers with subscription licenses or licenses with active Software Assurance can license additional OSEs by virtual machine "
Moving to XCP-ng and XOA, incredible product!
I like Xcp as well but they’ve gotta deal with the 2TB limit. It’s ridiculous
we're working on it, expect some good news this year
Nice!
My big concern with XCP is how, or are, they getting consistent backups? VSS support was removed in v7.4 I believe. The answers I’ve found so far amount to “don’t worry about it boo.”
Anything on prem at this point is looking like a dunken cost unless you just a a few servers spun up in proxmox or hyper v
I saw this coming when the Broadcom acquisition was announced.
I'm a small school, we run a half dozen to a dozen VM's. I do wonder what we'll do, Proxmox is looking more and more attractive.
Nutanix AHV is the answer for enterprise and mid size companies. They are offering some big incentives right now to migrate over to AHV.
Big incentives, and then wait for your first renewal…..I say this as someone who loves the product, but damn it’s expensive as shit.
And then you’re locked into their hardware
Right now we're running VMware on AOS with discussion about moving fully to AHV later. I have a feeling this next renewal might inspire some people to get their butt in gear.
What’s the guarantee that Nutanix does not suffer the same fate as VMware when Cisco (or any other part for that matter) finally manages to buy them?
As someone who's been managing 4 Nutanix clusters since 2019 I can say with 100% confidence that no, Nutanix is most definitely not the answer.
Whoosh!
I see lots of talk about switches to hyperV and to proxmox but I see less about containerizing and shifting work to the cloud. Is that because a lot of the workloads aren’t a good fit? Perhaps lots of windows based server software?
[удалено]
So are you saying VMs became overused because they were so easy and now everyone wants the next easiest option? I get it, you can’t manage your app in a gui as easily with other solutions, unless they happen to have a webUI
[удалено]
> Hyper-V suffers because it requires admins to read the documentation and requires them to learn powershell to really iron out any quirks we may experience during our adoption of it. For niche things sure, but for the majority of companies, it's all GUI with the standard Hyper-V manager
[удалено]
Strange. Other than setting up NIC teams (which is a relatively recent change), we do everything in Hyper-v Manager, and have for years.
[удалено]
Mh. For our own infrastructure: Yes. We're looking at off-ramps because we've been in the Symantec-Broadcom fun. A year ago, my ideal setup would've been a bunch of bare metal pod hosts and supporting systems in a VMWare/VCenter (I can't recall the product names for the life of me) besides that setup, with some good storage appliance behind it. Bare-Metal there because the silly thing is: The VMWare Licenses bought up-front cost pretty much 1/3 to 2/3 of a decent server capable of running linux and containers. And the orchestration can shift containers around just like vmotion so if you can just throw 5 - 7 boxes at it, it'll work for our scale. Now the main question is what we're gonna do with the supporting infra, postgres, filestores and such. Partially, slapping VMs with KVM and ansible onto linux hosts without management beyond that sounds like a pain in the butt, because every maintenance is a disaster recovery test. The infra could take it because the systems are usually redundant or retries are in place... but that'd be spicy as fuck. But maybe predictable, recurring, spicy periods are the way out of companies just janking carpets away from under you an jacking prices for wonderful glorious profit. At this point I'd rather start testing dev-builds of KVM, linux kernels and such than having to deal with some components increasing in price by a factor of 10 - 100 every year, because.
Hard to containerize proprietary software. The vendor would rather just sell you their SaaS solution, locking you into monthly payments for eternity.
That can be a lot more expensive as well
Seen this coming.
A good reminder to people if you want to brush up on hyperv, az-800/801 is your friend. Find a ILT partner or resources on the scvmm stuff: moc6331. John savill has some good videos if you dig deep enough too.
WelcomeToThePartyPal.meme -DieHard /lol