I was interested to read about how VMware is "cheaper". So I thought sound's interesting, I'll give it a whirl. Have a look here,Okay open that in another Window. I'll go for a fairly middle of the road example, put in 100 applications, I'll choose server B, (I think 32GB generally give you better bang for your buck), Pick any VMware edition (it calculates all of them anyway), select Average, and AverageExample Below, for those following on the VMware web site, you should be presented with a table that looks a bit like the one below:Calculate the cost per application Click Info to get more details
|
1.
|
Number of applications
Specify the number of applications
that you plan to virtualize
|
( min 10 - max 1000 VMs )
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Virtualization host type
Select a price and configuration for
the virtualization hosts
|
Server A (2 socket, dual-core CPU, 16 GB RAM, 3 NICs - $5,000 )
Server B (2 socket, quad-core CPU, 32 GB RAM, 4 NICs - $8,000 )
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
VMware Infrastructure 3 Edition
Select the VMware solution edition that
best meets your business goals
|
Foundation Standard Enterprise
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Management deployment
Select how the virtualization management
software should be deployed
|
Virtual Physical
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Cost of electric power
Select the electricity cost for this analysis
|
Low Average High
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Cost of real estate
Select the datacenter space cost
for the analysis
|
Low Average High
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click Submit Calculation, and what do we get:
As VMware Infrastructure 3 enables greater application density,
it requires fewer servers to host your applications, resulting in
a lower cost per application.
|
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Enterprise Edition
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Standard Edition
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Foundation Edition
|
Windows Server 2008
(Hyper-V)
+ System Center
|
|
Number of applications virtualized
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
Number of VMs per host
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
12
|
|
Number of hosts
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
9
|
|
Infrastructure Costs
|
$197,370
|
$197,370
|
$197,370
|
$238,971
|
|
Software Costs
|
$114,622
|
$90,402
|
$77,242
|
$100,938
|
|
Total Costs
|
$311,992
|
$287,772
|
$274,612
|
$339,909
|
|
Cost-per-application
|
$3,120
|
$2,878
|
$2,746
|
$3,399
|
|
Cost-per-application Savings
|
8%
|
15%
|
19%
|
|
Did you spot the difference? Yes that's the yellow bits. VMware thinks we need to buy a whole bunch of new servers based on, wait for it - Memory.So if we assume that what VMware says is true (which I don't), for the sake of this argument, and that it has better memory management, than Hyper-V. What would you do? Buy more memory maybe? If I add 1/3 more memory to each server that takes care of that. If I assume $1000 for 16GB of RAM. 6 Server each with another 16GB=$6000. Let's rerun those calculations:
|
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Enterprise Edition
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Standard Edition
|
VMware
Infrastructure 3
Foundation Edition
|
Windows Server 2008
(Hyper-V)
+ System Center
|
|
Number of applications virtualized
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
Number of VMs per host
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
|
Number of hosts
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
|
Infrastructure Costs
|
$197,370
|
$197,370
|
$197,370
|
$197,370
|
|
Extra RAM
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$6000
|
|
Software Costs
|
$114,622
|
$90,402
|
$77,242
|
$100,938
|
|
Total Costs
|
$311,992
|
$287,772
|
$274,612
|
$304,308
|
|
Cost-per-application
|
$3,120
|
$2,878
|
$2,746
|
$3,043
|
|
Cost-per-application Savings
|
-2.46%
|
5.7%
|
10.8%
|
|
Oops, is that a mistake, or doesn't that just prove that VMware's flagship product is - using their own calculations - more expensive than Hyper-V.
What is Memory Overcommit?
For a definition of overcommit, ask any employee of CitiBank, AIG, Lehman Bros etc. All banks overcommit, they take savings and lend out to others. So, we pool our memory, and those who need it draw from the pool. If everyone had to withdraw at the same time this would be analogous to a "run on a bank", in the virtual world the COS (console operating system) starts to page to disk, and you are best off rebooting the server - because it simply grinds to a halt. Memory is expensive, but it isn't money, Memory Overcommit seems like a good idea, until you analyse the risks. Banks are currently counting the cost of over extending themselves, I would caution System Architects to always have enough resources for any eventuality.
Other Technologies
In their notes VMware takes pains to explain that it is better than Hyper-V in various ways, however in independent testing VMware by no means comes out 33% ahead of the competition. Recent testing puts it ahead of Hyper-V, but behind Citrix and Novell Xen. There may be an argument that VMware is slighly better than Hyper-V in terms of performance, but most certainly not anything like 33%. If we eliminate memory overcommit by simply adding RAM, then the calculations are fundamentally flawed.
Gareth James
Article Tags