Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Citrix Virtualization] >> General



Message


Scott Lowe -> Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (30.Nov.2010 11:48:29 PM)

All -

The Citrix section seems to be the least-trafficked section here so it leads me to believe that our visitors don't use it much. For those of you that have evaluated Citrix against either VMware or Microsoft, what made you either adopt or reject the Citrix solution? Where did it beat the other choices? Where did it fall short?

Scott




pepoluan -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (1.Dec.2010 11:34:35 PM)

For me, it's the relative simplicity of installing XenServer.

However, my company might be migrating to VMware in the near future, due to VMware's more mature ecosystem.

Anyways, from a performance point-of-view, I have no complaint with XenServer, even the free edition :)




Scott Lowe -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (28.Dec.2010 7:58:44 PM)

Pepoluan,

I admit I haven't used XenServer much. Where do you think it beats VMware (or, where does it lag behind?). You mentioned that VMware might have a more mature ecosystem. Anything else where you think one beats the other?

Scott




pepoluan -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (22.Jan.2011 1:06:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott Lowe

Pepoluan,

I admit I haven't used XenServer much. Where do you think it beats VMware (or, where does it lag behind?). You mentioned that VMware might have a more mature ecosystem. Anything else where you think one beats the other?

Scott

Hello, sorry to not visit here earlier.

IMO, XenServer is a *lot* simpler than VMware. With 2 boxes you can already try-out Enterprise XenServer, and you don't need any software other than XenServer itself, plus (optionally) OpenFiler (to act as a 'sort-of' SAN).

Of course, for a full enterprise-scale deployment, you'll want to add more boxes (and an honest-to-goodness SAN box), plus more software like a license server, a database, and so on. But the beauty of XenServer's approach is: everything is optional. You can scale up or scale down as you want.

And with the recently released Open vSwitch for XenServer 5.6 fp 1, well, VMware's advantages gets reduced more and more each time.

So, at this point, the advantage for VMware would be only its more mature ecosystem.




Scott Lowe -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (28.Feb.2011 3:52:29 AM)

Pepoluan -

Interesting points. I really need to do some looking at XenServer. I've been primarily focused on Hyper-V and VMware.

How large is your environment? What kind of SAN do you have backing it all?

Scott




pepoluan -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (28.Feb.2011 4:10:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott Lowe

Interesting points. I really need to do some looking at XenServer. I've been primarily focused on Hyper-V and VMware.

How large is your environment? What kind of SAN do you have backing it all?

7 boxes (6+1) with 25 VMs (3 more being staged at this moment), running the gamut of Windows 2003 Standard, Windows 2003 Enterprise, Windows 2008 R2, Windows 7 64-bit (this one's for the devel guys), RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu Lucid, and Gentoo.

The 'heavyweights' was the 2 SQL Servers (each handling roughly 200-300 tpm), Mail Server (1000+ emails per day), and Proxy Server (I lost count with this one).

All schlepped to a pair of NetApp FAS2050.

(If you think the virtualization ratio of 1:4 is too low, you're right; the 7 boxes were 'leftovers' from the days before virtualization. We actually had 12 boxes before migrating everything to XenServer, and many functions are 'merged' into 1 box. 4 unused boxes got handed-down to branch offices. 1 box the IT Dept claimed for our toying [:D])




Scott Lowe -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (28.Feb.2011 6:13:02 PM)

You answered the first question I was going to ask ;-)  I was going to ask about the consolidation ratio.  What kinds of specs do you have for each host?

For us, we have just four VMware vSphere hosts, all with dual quad core processors.  We're weak on RAM: 3 hosts have just 32 GB, 1 has 48 GB.  However, one of the 32 GB hosts is soon going to be replaced with a 96 GB server and we're moving to a new SAN as well.  Almost all of what we run is Windows - anywhere from Windows 2000 (which I HATE still having to run) to Windows Server 2008 R2.

We have around 50 or so VMs running on the four hosts.  We're RAM-bound.  We have plenty of processing power and disk, but we're low on RAM; hence the new 96 GB server.  It was cheaper to buy the new server than to upgrade an existing unit.

Scott




Natalie01 -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (7.Mar.2011 1:43:33 AM)

Isn't there are way to upgrade the RAM ?
Is it due to funding problem ?




Scott Lowe -> RE: Citrix vs. VMware vs. Microsoft (19.Mar.2011 9:35:18 PM)

Natalie,

We could have just upgraded the RAM, but, from a cost standpoint, it was actually less expensive to upgrade the whole server. For less money than a RAM upgrade would have cost, we've moved from a 32 GB box with 8 processor cores to a 96 GB box with 12 processor cores. Good deal all around!

Scott




Page: [1]