Check out these hot products that keep workers connected, wherever they are.
Solution providers and vendors met up at this year's XChange Government Integrator '08 conference in Washington, D.C. this year to honor the companies that prove that they understand the IT requirements of the public sector.
ChannelWeb picked 15 common beliefs about Microsoft and gave channel partners the opportunity to explain why they're more fiction than fact.
He then presents what he says is a quick look by VMware at, essentially, how much horsepower is provided by his company's ESX server 3 against Microsoft's Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer v4:
We took a common dual socket server with 4GB of RAM and tried the test with ESX Server 3, Citrix XenServer v4 and Microsoft Hyper-V beta. We created and powered on 512MB Windows XP VMs running a light workload and kept adding them until the server couldn't take any more. Our Hyper-V and XenServer tests topped out at six and seven VMs respectively, which was expected. You see, both those products subtract the full amount of memory allocated to each running VM from the host's physical RAM. When you factor in the additional memory required by the hypervisor and the management OS, there's room left for at most seven VMs. In fact, XenServer and Hyper-V will flat out refuse to let you power on an additional VM with a warning that memory resources have been exhausted, as shown in the screen shots below. XenServer and Hyper-V can't do what we call "overcommiting" memory and that should strike you as tremendously wasteful when most data center VMs are lightly utilized.
VMware VI3 Enterprise can run as many as 14 VMs in a 2-way server with 4 GB of RAM, at a cost of $1,268 per VM, compared to $1,714 per VM in the same box that can run 7 "free" hypervisor VMs, he contends.
There's much more to Horschman's post following that discussion, too.
A quick note: 4 GB of RAM appears to be the very low end of the memory scale when deploying anything having to do with Windows Server 2008 and Hyper-V. In fact, in one recent conversation with a solution provider who has been migrating customers to Server 2008, the solution provider said it's simply the best practice to load up any box that will run Server 2008 with as much memory as it can take - - in many cases as much as 32 GB. In that scenario, it's not clear how the ROI comparison scales up.
Subscribe To This Feed
