The ability to share resources is one of the most significant reasons for a business to implement hypervisors. However, the variety of hypervisors currently available can make this decision process challenging. VMware is the name of a company that develops a range of hypervisors, including the enterprise-class ESXi. KVM is an infrastructure for the Linux kernel that provides it with the capabilities of a hypervisor. The following points of comparison can help organizations in need of a hypervisor choose between VMware and KVM.
A hypervisor virtualizes a computing environment, meaning the guests in that environment share physical resources such as processing capability, memory and storage encompassing a private cloud.
This requirement means that a hypervisor must accurately emulate the physical hardware to prevent guests from accessing it except under carefully controlled circumstances. The method that a hypervisor uses to do this is a key factor in its performance.
These drivers are OS-specific and often specific to a particular hypervisor. Hypervisors may be classified into two types, which can impact their performance. These hypervisors typically allow some guests to control the hypervisor. Most businesses use Type 1 hypervisors. A Type 2 hypervisor, also known as a hosted hypervisor, runs within an OS that runs on the physical hardware.
The OS of each guest then runs on top of the hypervisor. Desktop hypervisors are usually Type 2 hypervisors. The classification of KVM is more challenging because it shares characteristics of both types of hypervisor.
The host OS provides KVM with a launch mechanism and establishes a co-processing relationship with it, allowing KVM to share control over physical hardware with the Linux kernel. I have read a lot of valid arguments, and, unfortunately a lot of flawed arguments too. What I will write here is based on my personal experience , I run a half dozen Enterprise level vitualized environments : For the perspective of most of my customers, the main difference are the ability to audit the code of KVM witch are Open Source and a lack of it in VMWare.
VMWare is a black box, no one knows what happens inside of it, what are done with the VMs that are running over it.
Insted of it, with KVM, you know exactly what is happening. You know that KVM are not sending sensitive information about your VMs, or statistics about your environment to the vendor. Lot of vendors says that "VMWare runs the world" , really? About performance, nowadays there are no big difference between all the systems, technology blurred the lines between Type 1 and Type 2 Virtualization approaches. Open source management systems Like Proxmox used by Facebook leveled the line between Commercial and non-commercial tools.
Yes, there are some scenarios that VMWare makes sense, buts the decision on witch are better for a particular user case goes down to the details. Think about that before spend your budget of 2 or 3 years in one tool. VMware is indeed the Rolls Royce of virtualization but doesn't come cheap.
One has to have deeper pockets to access the finer enhanced features of the vSphere packages. KVM on the other, is also a stable Hypervisor and very popular with Linux inclined techs and gurus.
If you run applications that are not relying on infra you can run that on KVM. VSphere offers more functionallity to support the application from a infra perspectve.
Most traditional enterprise apps I would not run on KVM, also taking into account the support you may need, but apps build for OStack or OShift should run fine. From a cost perspective VMware is mire expensive to buy, but from a TCO perspective that may flip depending on the workloads you are running. The big difference it's cost but vMware is leader on Virtualization. KVM is a simple and OpenStack-preferred virtual machine manager.
One answer to your question will be a company that can afford and wants to have a stable and long-term VM infrastructure can consider VMWare, as KVM is considered as a bare-bone VM manager. The actual comparison should be between VMWare and OpenStack, as one is paid and one is free to deploy.
The deployment for OpenStack can be a little trial and error as it is free and modular, and VMWare is fully-packaged, and it is easier for you to deploy, but at a cost that is calculated by per host. Service Virtualization is used to virtualize a Web service or a Message-based service. So, I assume you got confused by the very similar name of both. If I misunderstood the questions, please let me know.
I am happy to help. With VMware vsphere you will get one yo three years support with your purchase. Define your need and chose the product that will fit best your need. Don't forget there is also a free version of VMware esxi with no central management available.
For linux i ll go to acropolis or ESXi. For a small datacenter or big VMware offer a lot of features and hyper-v a little less. If you have a lot of windows licence Hyper-v will be cheaper than vmware. VMware is robust and can be scale up and out easily. Vmware has more integration with other 3rd party product than KVM. Backup software for instance. The way I read this question is which is the better platform on which to build Service Virtualization.
If that is the case, then the next question is if you expect a 'productized' offering that can be expected to run more-or-less out of the box. If that is the case, then VMware.
The latest business technology news, plus in-depth resources. A bimonthly digest of the best human resources content. Looking for software? Try our Product Selection Tool. Get results fast. Talk to an expert now. Get Our Newsletter. What is the KVM hypervisor? VMware These tools both come in free or paid options. Support KVM support is provided through several well-respected vendors like Red Hat or Oracle, and there is a vibrant community of home lab and professional server admins available for help.
Which is best for small, medium, and large enterprises? Get our best stuff. Newsletter Subscriptions.
0コメント