Print 48 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 9:57 AM

Nissan uses 20 Dell R900 servers in their Tennessee plant data center's new virtualized architecture.  (Source: Dell)

Nissan also uses 8 Dell 2950 rack servers, as well.  (Source: Dell)
Nissan answers all our questions about its new virtualization deployment.

Yesterday, we reported on Nissan's efforts to use virtualization technologies -- with software from Microsoft and hardware from Dell -- to improve their Smyrna (vehicle assembly) and Decherd (engine manufacturing -- Nissan and Infiniti) assembly plants, located in Tennessee.  While the numbers in that piece were certainly interesting, most readers wanted more specifics -- the kind that only Nissan's engineers could provide.  Did Nissan go "virtualization crazy" wondered one reader -- or was their decision founded on logic?  DailyTech contacted Nissan to answer that get the full story on how and why these plants went virtualized.

Perhaps the single most important metric presented was the amount of servers that Nissan was purchasing over a five year period.  Previously Nissan had purchased 159 servers for the plants, in a five-year span.  Using virtualization, they dropped this number to 28 servers to be purchased every five years.  In other words, they cut their server purchases by 80 percent over a five year cycle -- yielding major cost, energy and space savings.

The Nissan server farm is a diverse mix of database servers, application servers, and other specialized servers like print servers.  These servers send signals to over 5,000 devices on the floor including HMIs (wired and wireless), PLCs, Marquees, Wireless PDAs, Wireless Scanners, utility meters, identification equipment (e.g. Smarteye readers/RFID readers) and printers, as well as additional signals that go to plant robots.  Still other servers run applications that track metrics and help cut costs, or send build data to the plant floor employees.

Nissan's internal customers -- production, maintenance, and other departments -- had been consistently demanding more quality, tracking, and cost management applications.  Many of these applications couldn't coexist on the same server.  So while some servers had idle resources, instead new servers had to be purchased.  Describes Matt Slipher, Systems Engineer at Nissan, "Say a customer comes up to me and says 'I have this new application (or system) which I want to put in the system.'  I wouldn't just buy one server -- I would buy three." 

"It was getting out of control," adds Phil D'Antonio, manager of Conveyors and Controls Engineering at Nissan (NA).

The server farm ballooned to 159 servers.  At that point Nissan engineers decided they had to act.  The pressure was high, though.  Any upgraded architecture would have to withstand a rigorous workload.  As Phil D'Antonio states, "If those servers stop, the metal in the building stops.  They are very important -- mission critical."

After careful analysis, a virtualization scheme was devised.  For hypervisor software, Nissan investigated Microsoft's Hyper-V and a competitive offering from a "leading competitor" (VMWare).  In the end the two matched up about evenly in performance, but the Microsoft virtualization software prevailed as Nissan's systems already ran Microsoft SQL clusters, web servers, and other Microsoft products, making management easier with Hyper-V.

For hardware, 20 Dell R900, and 8 Dell 2950 rack servers were purchased.  The Dell servers provided four Xeon quad-core Intel processors per server, for a total of 16 CPU cores per server.  The servers were arrange in 6 server clusters with 4 active servers, with 32 GB of memory each, and 2 passive servers, with 64 GB of memory each.  Each server has a 4 Gbit/s HBA connection and four 4 Gbit/s ethernet NIC connections.

The servers handle a lot of legacy software -- Nissan engineers during the upgrade moved away from Windows Server NT, but they still have other applications running on older OS's.  States Matt Slipher, "We do have what I would call a lot of legacy systems.  A lot are running [Windows Server] 2003.  To give an example, some of our database servers run [Windows Server] 2003, and some of our applications servers run [Windows Server] 2000."

Thanks to virtualization all of those systems are running side by side now, as separate VM's on coexisting on the same servers, with little unused resources.  The architecture has also been commonized, reducing administration workload.  Engineers now are being moved from IT administration tasks to deploying new applications on the floor and other plant improvements.  The entire transition to the new architecture took only 12 months.

For other companies considering virtualization, but unsure of the costs and benefits, Matt Slipher suggests, "Make your own judgement.  Get your tools and test them.  We got [competitive offerings] and tested them... [For us] Hyper-V was less of a learning curve."

Update 1 (Aug. 21, 10:20 a.m.)

Based on user feedback, I got back in touch with Nissan to get a few more details.  The company is going with EMC for their SAN and backup hardware.  Their SAN uses 2 mirrored EMC CLARiiON 240s.  The CLARiiON 240 allows for easy scaling up to 231 TB of storage.

For backup, the plants are using an on-site EMC DL210 virtual tape library with EMC's Networker backup software.  The DL210, was among the first virtual tape libraries to use SATA drives to cut costs.  It launched in 2006 with a retail price of $50,000 at launch and has 4-24 TB of space. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Jeff7181 on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Discount?
By Samus on 8/21/2009 4:00:50 AM , Rating: 5
Somehow I doubt Nissan is anywhere near Microsoft's biggest customer for Hyper-V. A lot of companies use it. Sun Microsystems ships servers centralized around Hyper-V support, Dell uses Hyper-V on a global scale, not in just one state, and Northrop Gruman (the military contractor) has a huge server farm dedicated to virtualization and I'm pretty sure it runs Hyper-V considering most of the military and their contractors generally use Microsoft products on non-top secret clearance systems.

Basically as Nissan engineers stated, if a company already has an existing infrastructure of Microsoft servers, they are likely to lean away from VMware, even though Hyper-V has equally competative Linux support.

So basically the product doesn't need to be advertised. It's like the Prius. There is so much damn buzz...

RE: Discount?
By Lifted on 8/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Discount?
By GreenEnvt on 8/21/2009 8:24:19 AM , Rating: 3
This is the "Virtualization: sponsored by Microsoft" area, so I expect to see a obvious slant in this seciton. (see banner at top of story).

RE: Discount?
By Lifted on 8/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Discount?
By Samus on 8/21/2009 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 1
What the fuck are you guys talking about?

Dailytech isn't some not-for-profit organization. Neither is Anandtech. Even when they promote a product that is in their favor of promoting, they have a realistic reason for recommending it, not just 'we were paid to say its good.'

Of ALL the tech sites, whether it be news or reviews, I've almost always agreed with Anandtech's conclusions and have always appriciated DailyTech for a news source. Of all the sources you can get your news from, I feel DailyTech to be one of the LEAST biased of them all.

You guys need to take a few journalism courses, maybe then you'll understand how the industry works.

RE: Discount?
By Lifted on 8/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Discount?
By Lifted on 8/21/2009 10:48:26 AM , Rating: 5
Wow Jason, my posts were lingering around at a 2 for quite a while... then you come by, make an update to the article, and at the same time all 3 of my posts are rated down 2 or 3 levels. Pretty weak, but it's your site, do what you want (no matter how childish it makes you look).

RE: Discount?
By acase on 8/21/2009 11:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
I have definitely noticed when you make a negative (completely true) statement about Mick you get rated down a lot at first, even though no one ever defends the dude. Of course, once everyone reads it and agrees it tends to end up going back up.

RE: Discount?
By ClownPuncher on 8/21/2009 3:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
He is a Lenin ghola.

RE: Discount?
By Myg on 8/21/2009 12:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, not just a single person; but the entire site has been losing touch with its purpose for the past year and a bit now.

Personal agendas and repeated press releases are eating away at the soul of anandtech's news.

First it was tomshardware, then it will be anand, seems like there will only be Hardocp to run to...

RE: Discount?
By johnsonx on 8/21/2009 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 5
As I've complained before, DailyTech has become DailyMick. He writes about 90% of the stories, and a goodly percentage of those are just ridiculous examples of poor writing, poor grammar, misquoting, sensationalizing, and just generally getting the story completely wrong. Another non-trivial percent appear to be nothing but advertising disguised as articles.

I don't know what's happened to the 'real' DailyTech. Kristopher Kubicki hasn't been seen in over a year. Most of the other original writers haven't been heard from for even longer.

I think the only reason I still visit is that the headlines are all linked on Anandtech, which I still value and respsect, and I usually can't resist clicking on some interesting headlines. Before I know it I'm reading yet another stupid Mick article even though I vowed not to.

If I could get a version of Anandtech with either a different news feed, or no feed at all, I'd change in a heartbeat and probably never come back.

Many will probably poo-poo this, but I've been visiting a bit in recent days. As a print mag I've enjoyed reading it over the last few years, though much of the 'news' is quite old by the time I get my hands on it. But the on-line news seems plentiful and fairly timely - most things I've read lately on DailyMick were posted to a day or two earler. The biggest difference though is that the writers for MaximumPC seem a lot more like professional journalists since they come from a print background.

Here's to hoping that print media makes a come-back once people start to recognize that without it we'll have nothing to read but the lazy, unprofessional ramblings of glorified bloggers like Jason Mick.

RE: Discount?
By polaris2k4 on 8/21/2009 1:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think you have just summed up what ALOT of us here are feeling about DT lately.

To the DT Editors, please proofread and provide better content.
Anand has shown online tech writing doesn't have to imply poor writing and incomplete journalism, please don't diverge from that.

RE: Discount?
By polaris2k4 on 8/21/2009 1:59:17 PM , Rating: 3
I think you have just summed up what ALOT of us here are feeling about DT lately.

To the DT Editors, please proofread and provide better content.
Anand has shown online tech writing doesn't have to imply poor writing and incomplete journalism, please don't diverge from that.

RE: Discount?
By GreenEnvt on 8/21/2009 12:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now Jason moved it out of the MS section, and into the Auto section.
Thats lame.

RE: Discount?
By johnsonx on 8/21/2009 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
lol... Nissan buying servers is Automotive news? That's rich.

RE: Discount?
By johnsonx on 8/21/2009 12:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
lol again, now he's moved it back to Virtualization. Mick, you're hilarious.

RE: Discount?
By johnsonx on 8/21/2009 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
By hilarous of course I mean pathetic, but in a way that frequently amuses me.

Sponsored by Microsoft?!!!
By sixth on 8/21/2009 9:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
Nice an article and have ten ad's on the side of the page advertising MS Virtualization....

RE: Sponsored by Microsoft?!!!
By kalak on 8/21/2009 10:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
Adblock Plus ?!

RE: Sponsored by Microsoft?!!!
By achintya on 8/21/2009 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately that didn't automatically block the image. You have to add a custom rule for that as this image is located in DT's main image cache.

It makes better sense now
By InternetGeek on 8/20/2009 8:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
Looks like the strategy also include a lot of servers controlling robots and other things no one mentioned yesterday.

You can't just turn off those servers and tell people "dont print out anything in the next 2 hours". That requires to stop the plant.

Thanks guys

A good followup
By eddieroolz on 8/21/2009 1:24:48 AM , Rating: 2
A good followup to the previous story. Thanks Jason!

Just two more missing pieces...
By Lord 666 on 8/21/2009 8:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
What are they using for the 1. SAN and 2. Backup/data retention and DR/BC?

Thanks Mick

By PontifexMaximus on 8/21/2009 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
I already mentioned previously just a small sample of features that Hyper-V is missing out on. But I really think many of the reasons boil down to the superior networking and storage stack in VMware. And one of the features I just love in VMware is NFS. Here's a number of reasons why:

We run NFS in our production VMware environment, so I can confirm the findings in these blog posts. In my opinion performance is on par with iSCSI, or better (when considering significantly lower cpu utilization of software-based iSCSI), and it's really easy to setup.

100% virtual?
By Jeff7181 on 8/21/2009 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
So am I to understand not a single server is not virtualized? That's pretty impressive. Maybe I've been out of the loop for a bit, but previously I didn't think virtualizing database servers was a good idea from a performance standpoint.

Less of a Learning Curve?
By HinderedHindsight on 8/21/2009 5:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
In the last 8 months I worked to convert my companies server infrastructure (including IT, development, test, and production) to a virtual platform based on vSphere 4. I can't imagine what kind of a learning curve they needed.

I admit I'm somewhat of a VMWare junkie, but at the same time, if they tested the infrastructure thoroughly enough to know that it performed on par with Hyper-V, then why do they need tat big of a learning curve? They should have learned the product during the testing cycle.

There are just too many advantages with VMWare to go with Hyper-V; between hardware based ESXi (so that you're not installing VMWare on a hard disk), to fault tolerance (what amounts to cluster-less redundancy with minimal effort and config) and live migration of a virtual machine (which gives you the ability to load balance between different physical machines), it's hard to imagine that whatever learning curve they felt they needed overshadowed these features. Implementing fault tolerance was relatively trivial once I understood the requirements.

I'm not convinced they made an informed choice. While I understand that it's important the tools purchased need to work for the staff, in this case, I can't imagine how VMWare's offering was that much more complicated that it overshadowed the maturity and enhanced features of vSphere. Perhaps it was the familiarity of a Microsoft GUI versus a VMWare GUI...?

By on 8/22/2009 11:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

By on 8/22/2009 12:41:00 PM , Rating: 2

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31


By on 8/22/2009 12:41:14 PM , Rating: 2

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31


By on 8/22/2009 1:10:45 PM , Rating: 2

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas,

also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free

shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept Credit card payment.,after

the payment, can ship within short time.

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the Credit card

our price:
jordan air max oakland raiders $34--39;
Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;
gstar coogi evisu true jeans $35;
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;
coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;
coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;

We do wholesale and retail! All are extremely CHEAP, please visit: (JERSEY) (ED HARDY) (JEANS) (TSHIRTS) (JORDAN SHOES) (SANDAL) (HANDBAGS) (sunglass)

By on 8/30/2009 9:57:20 AM , Rating: 2


(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

They're going to regret it
By DigitalFreak on 8/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: They're going to regret it
By PontifexMaximus on 8/20/2009 9:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the upfront costs were significantly lower or appeared to be lower sticking with Microsoft since they probably already have software assurance and volume licensing deals. Hyper-V R2 is finally getting to where VMware was years ago with Live Migration, but there's so much Nissan is missing out on that could significantly increase their uptime, storage utilization, memory utilization, and energy costs.
To add to your list:
Storage vmotion, storage thin provisioning (save up to 50% on storage), DPM (shut off cores or underutilized host servers automatically), transparent page sharing (thin provisioning for memory), Fault Tolerance (lockstep HA above and beyond normal HA), EVC (no need for the exact some processor families to do Vmotions), there are many more technologies: namely the advances VMware has with their storage and networking stacks. Where's the NFS? I believe Microsoft is really missing the boat with that one.

RE: They're going to regret it
By ranger203 on 8/21/2009 7:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
PontifexMaximus is right, while Hyper-V R2 is finally an acceptable hypervisor from Microsoft, it cannot compete with VMWare's vSphere 4. They allow you to build a cost model that can take advantage of your datacenter's current size, plan years in advanced using average growth metrics, and then buy the physical hardware later (more storage & memory) when that hardware is even better and cheaper. It just makes more sense.

RE: They're going to regret it
By mfed3 on 8/20/2009 9:35:14 PM , Rating: 4
they weighed out the options, and found that microsoft's solution was much cheaper. just because you like vmware doesnt mean its the best in every situation. the article said they saved tons of money while having equal performance, which was their goal.

RE: They're going to regret it
By rippleyaliens on 8/20/2009 10:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the killer with the Microsoft product is the great cost.. Licensing is cheaper, and the whole gambit. ON THE INITIAL PURCHASE...
The hidden dollars are the upkeep of the servers. Even a core install of win2k8 hypervisor, etc.. still suffers from the main thing in which it is a native windows problem.. They have to be updated.. and they have to be re-booted. period. EVEN ESX servers need rebooting. Windows hypervisor however sexy it is, still needs to be wary of drivers, patches, which need upgrading from time to time. Migrating live servers with Microsoft suffers.. Yes it works, but it does indeed suffer..

Speed of the virtual servers, in reality is a non-issue, as both hypervisors offer support up to 4 procs and the ram on the HOST servers is only 32.. But the soft dollars will be the ones that come up to bit ya. And yes microsofts solution is much cheaper , PER HOST.. Yet overall it actually cost much more than a Vmware Solution..

People talk of virtualization and the pro's cons. etc... Primary goal of Virtualization is SERVER Consilidation.. PERIOD..
Secondary goal is Capabilities..
Third Goal is your ROI... Granted Roi and Tco come to the CFO's office first and such.. But in reality the LONG Term goal and costs.. over 3yrs should be looked at, not the cost on BILL PAYMENT DAY..
Just the fact that with Vmware ESX on simular servers, you can get a 16-20 Server Consolidation ALONE, means 1 ESX host per 2-3 Windows Host.. That alone mitigates the cost factor Immediatly..

Performance - SAME THING.. With a ESX install you are looking at DRS= Servers can automatically vmotion high usage servers off to lower usage Esx hosts.. AUTOMATICALLY..

ESX power.. = During slow downs... Will migrate servers off of ESX Server, SHUT THE SERVER DOWN, until demand rises, and then VMOTION BACK utilizing DRS..

Having 2 Standby Servers, proves my point.. The design was made with marketing versus usability.. Why on earth would you have 2x$30,000 Servers sitting around in a standby situation? That is 60k of dollars being squandared for going with a solution , however it works, preforms, and expands.. just proves meh point, The money saved, acutally is not saved at all.. Just wasted...

Yah i am just ranting.. But as a Heavy Microsoft , a HEAVYYYY HP ASE tekie.. and a HEAVYYYYY VMware nerdly.. It just burns to see half arse constructed solutions based on the need to push a product that is 2-3 gens behind Current proven solutions..

PS.. The money saved,, is not there.. $2600x2 for the 5k in microsoft ENT licenses.. IE 2 of those = 8 Server licenses that can be virtualized... DUH That same deal goes for Vmware as well..

AND AS ANY TECH KNOWS who works with this.. That Virtual Hyporvisor is indeed fast.. BUT IS NOT the fastest.. NOR most stable one out there..

RE: They're going to regret it
By mikefarinha on 8/21/2009 1:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
Everything you said is correct.

However the one thing that scares you is that Microsoft has entered the enterprise virtualization market less than three years ago... and they catching up very very quickly.

One thing VMWare shops should have noticed these past few months are the tremendous price drops that Microsoft is forcing them to make.

I say this as a small 250 person shop that has had Hyper-V deployed for about a year now... Hyper-V is literally a fraction of the cost of ESX and our less-than-savvy admins are able to keep it running silky smooth.

RE: They're going to regret it
By Varun on 8/21/2009 1:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
We've recently switched to VMware vSphere, and it is truly amazing. I just wanted to make the point that maybe in your case consolidation is the key with virtualization, and likely in the beginning that is what it was all about, but in our case I would say the other features of VMware likely outweigh consolidation:

We can do hardware maintenace with no downtime to clients
We actually can do Disaster Recovery now (this is pretty big)
Ease of administration with vCenter Server
Of course consolidation was nice too - we moved from about 35 servers to 4, and we could easily run them all on 2.

Of course the 4 servers are much larger and more expensive, but they still are much cheaper.

My point is just that, likely in the past consolidation was the main selling point of virtualization, but with the features they have added now, there is an even more compelling reason to move to VMware.

We are not a Microsoft shop, so Hyper-V wasn't even considered. I did look at Xen, but VMware management tools are just too amazing.

Anyway, good for Nissan. This was a nice article. What I would like to see next is an article about one of the millions of other companies that have done the same as this with competing software - not just VMware, but Xen, etc. It would be nice to see what challenges and expectations companies have when they set down this path.

RE: They're going to regret it
By pupdawg21 on 8/21/2009 7:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you really are not familiar with the complete package and capabilities of Hyper-V R2 in combination with SCVMM/SCOM.

But one thing I wanted to touch on is your gripe of having the (2) extra passive servers. Take for example if you have (2) servers simutaneously fail with mission critical servers running on them. Without the extra capacity there would be no where for these services to restart on. This would also be a good idea to have even in a VMWare environment.

By rippleyaliens on 8/23/2009 12:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you are right, i dont know the full capabilities of hyper-v.. BUT i do know the Vmware ESX 2/3/4.. If we were talking about Vmware Server, than yah, i would go with a HYPER-V solution hands down.. BUT I take it you have not really done the ESX, IE the datacenter varient of vmwares virtualization. I have tried xen, microsofts, Vmwares.. In all honesty, XEN is MUCH Faster, to the point it runs almost native compaired to hardware. But then your consilidation ratio goes to garbage.

And to answer someones other post about consilidation.. YES it is all about consilidatiion.. YES it is the primary goal of going virtual. BUT and this is a huge big ole but.. With proper technical gear / EXPERTISE.. ANY thing can be virtualized.. Granted horse power is needed. My biggest install was a full 1000 user citrix environment, which by itself virtualizatoin of applicatoins,, I Virtualized an entire Citrix Farm.. Pretty much, citrix is one of those few apps in which the need for high performance servers are critical. After virtualizing the servers, i got a 2x fold of users per U, as well as a 8-10 server consilidation ratio.. WITH THE EXACT same performance.. And we were only using 2u ESX servers, Dualxquad.. NOT quadxquad or quadxsix core..+ Other mix match servers.. SQL, EXCHANGE, Document mgmt servers, etc.. The customer wanted the Microsoft way, I told him the VMware way.. he fired meh, then 3 days later, when the microsoft way, didnt work, we re-did it the RIGHT way, NOT Saying Microsoft was wrong, BUT consilidation just to do, is not right,, consilidation to solve problems, to enhance capabilities, and to ensure performance levels.. is the right way..

PSS.. if you constructed your environment the right way, VMware wise, with 10 servers, you can effectively loose 40% of your servers, 4 Servers, and still be operational.. With DRS+Reserve Allocation+Server preference= ability to loose much more than what you would think could be done..

Even in a test lab, which i do ALOT of them, i can get 15 Servers EASILY running, and we are talking a mix of win 2k3, 2k3, win 7 , vista, SQL Servers, Citrix Servers, Exchange, web servers etc... RUNNING, and PREFORMING on a single quad core (q6600) 8GB of ram, Esx 3.5 server. AND proved it.. as a data center failover test. Vmware is very powerful, when fully utilized.. With the Hyperv, 3 Servers MAX on EXACT same server, in a test. I dislike Vmware with their pricing,, massivly.. Im all for a MS solution.. BUT when i hear of Car makers going nickle dime, trying to highsign on going green, (money i can understand that green).. And then flaunting their accomplishment.. that is just piss poor..

And to add, DUHHH Pupawg21, High avaliability is paramount with any virtual environment, as all eggs are in the one basket.. duh... MS just lacks.. HAving standby servers, are like having guns in your closet.. sure it is a standby, but will do you no good, when ya need it then and right now.. 2 simutaneously failed servers.. OOO KKK, your point is what??? Vmware HA, for the win. When MS comes strong with a awesome solution, i am all on it.. I have to give the linux/vmware guys props.. it works, is bullet proof.. and more so it scales... NOT to mention that it is proven, of all thigns, i can get a microsoft server to be much faster on a esx server than raw.. on SAME hardware..

RE: They're going to regret it
By Smilin on 8/20/2009 9:56:39 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone who runs Hyper-V in an enterprise environment is a fool

No offense (sincerely) but I think you've been living under a rock.

RE: They're going to regret it
By mlambert on 8/21/2009 2:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
If hyper-v allowed for nfs connected (or cifs with wire speed performance) datastores that could allow for thin provisioned vm's by default... we would have something to really talk about.

There is nothing wrong with hyper-v at the 1000 foot view, but theres a lot lacking. I run it in production btw, just not for production if you know what i mean.

RE: They're going to regret it
By solgae1784 on 8/21/2009 2:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
While I commend Microsoft for bringing out quite a capable 1.0 product of their hypervisor product (and bringing live migration for free in R2), IMO they are still nowhere near the same maturity as VMware.

Feature set wise, VMware can trump Microsoft's solution anyday. While Microsoft may have a functional equivalent features for VMware's HA and VMotion, VMware vSphere also has Fault tolerance, support for many Windows versions down to NT 4 and Linux distros which Hyper-V will not, and up to 8vCPU support for ANY guest OS. Hyper-V will only support multiple vCPUs on certain guest OSes, and will not support running multiple vCPUs on Linux. There is even a service pack requirement on some of the Windows OS.

And remember that while they are advertising Hyper-V as a free product, you still need to buy Windows server 2008 license to run Hyper-V because some features are dependent on Windows features like clustering for Hyper-V version of HA. Add to that, the management tools for Hyper-V (which is part of SCOM) that is similar to VMware's vCenter server does NOT come free. Add everything into the factor and suddenly, you'll find that Microsoft's claim about being 1/3 cost of VMware is nowhere near the truth.

One more thing: VMware has a free version of their ESX product (ESXi) as well that can be booted up using USB key drive, or even embedded in a flash memory when you buy server hardware. Try doing that with Hyper-V.

Intel Servers = Failed
By chick0n on 8/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Intel Servers = Failed
By Tjensen on 8/21/2009 4:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that the current line of Opterons's beat the new Xeon's based on the nehalem architecture. If we go a couple of years back, the Opterons where the CPU of choice for virtualization, due to their massive memory bandwith, but that is not the case anymore.

By therealnickdanger on 8/21/2009 8:31:44 AM , Rating: 5
FYI, it's not 2004 anymore.

RE: Intel Servers = Failed
By barry1982 on 8/21/2009 10:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
Opterons are good, definitely, but Intel has been relatively aggressive with their Xeon pricing. Also, Intel has better, IMHO, support for these kinds of virtualization and management technologies built in.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki