Hypervisor Battle – vSphere 5.5 vs XenServer 6.2

VMware has been the first choice when it comes to hypervisor choice. In this post lets have a quick look into hypervisor battle – vSphere 5.5 vs Xenserver 6.2

vmware vs citrix

I hope below details will clearly indicates what hypervisor to choose when it comes to server or desktop virtualization.

DONT FORGET FOUNDATION NEEDS TO BE STRONG. ūüôā¬† BE careful when it comes to VMware vs Citrix

Please note

VMware launch gets biggest on 2nd February. Almost all of VMware’s customers / partners will be attending this online event hosted by VMware CEO, Pat Gelsinger & CTO, Ben Fathi, make sure you don’t miss out attending this.¬† Register using the link below and you can also calendarize it.

Sr. No Xenserver 6.2 vSphere 5.5 Comment
1 > 1 GB as dependent on DOM0 Linux partition less than 200 MB of Kernel footprint, boot the hypervisor Hypervisor Architecture & Size does matter. Did I see performance issues in XenServer???Please refer the URL http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmware-maximize-workload-density-tg.pdf (though old) will clearly indicate that (XenServer has closed the density gap in terms of number of concurrent VMs that can be run on a given host, coming to par with ESXi, but that this comes with a significant and unacceptable performance penalty. XenServer consistently delivers far less performance across the board (penalty ranging from 25% to 69%)
 2  Hypervisor needs to be on same version in cluster  Different versions of hypervisor can exist in the cluster In a XenServer pool, all hosts have historically been required to be at the same version and patch level except during the process of upgrading the pool
 3  Xenmotion depends on shared storage  VMotion can work without shared storage  Host and storage migration will work simultaneusly
¬†4 ¬†I/O issues seen when pCPU’s are overcommited ¬†All is well ¬†When more vCPUs are being executed than pCPUs that are available, the Xen hypervisor might not be able to schedule dom0’s vCPUs when they require execution time. This has a negative effect on all operations that depend on dom0, including I/O throughput and control plane operations.
¬†5 ¬†VM’s per host = 500 ¬†VM’s per host = 512 ¬†Cool
Marginal difference. But Refer point 1
¬†6 ¬†vCPU’s per host = 3250 ¬†vCPU’s per host = 4096 ¬†Cool
Marginal difference. But Refer point 1
 7  No load balancing of workloads across hosts or storages  DRS  & Storage DRS Comeon do you expect to assign someone to do so. This is a great drawback in case of Xenserver 6.2 
 8  RHEL, OEL & CentOS Guest OS fails to boot without kernel upgrades  All is well Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL), and CentOS 5.0 64-bit guest operating systems with their original kernels will fail to boot on XenServer 6.2.0
¬†9 ¬†for VM’s are >100, display and navigation on xencenter can be slow All is well¬† Display and navigation can be slow when using the xsconsole with a large number of VMs (>100) when viewing the “VMs Running on This Host” page
 10  Reverting to snapshot may result VM without any attached disks  All is well  so I cant even revert to original state without risk???
¬†11 ¬†If storage repository(SR) is out of space , the XenServer Control Domain may become unresponsive If datastore is out of space, new VM’s may not poweron but no issues with hypervisor ¬†Are you giving an administrator along with your licenses. Customers are advised to monitor the available disk space on their SRs and free up space should this occur.
 12  DHCP app behaves stupid All is well   DHCP a basic app giving issues? DHCP lease renewal fails if the DHCP client and DHCP server are both Linux VMs on the same host.
 13  Networking performance metrics may be misleading when network traffic exceeds 6.4Gb/s.  All is well
 14  Cancelling Storage Xenmotion may not delete the temporary disk files  All is well
 15  Upgrading the XenServer Tools on a Windows VM may cause the VM to crash All is well  BEWARE OF UPGRADES. that is actively using Dynamic Memory Control (DMC)
 16  Lower consolidation ratio  Higher consolidation ratio  vSphere performs better than other hypervisors. So number of VM’s packed on one server using VMware would be more compared to other’s and thus less hardware is required. (Pg 1 of above link says and in our view gives ESXi as much as a 2:1 density advantage over XenServer, once we consider the ability of the hypervisor to access the full performance of the underlying hardware).VMware has N number of customers who had been enjoying simply enormous consolidation ratio. One of the customer achieved 213:1 consolidation ratio http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/customers/apac_in_11Q2_ss_vmw_Cybage_English.pdf
¬†17 ¬†Windows 8 VM’s needs to be recreated ¬†All is well ¬†Customers are advised to re-create any Windows 8 VMs on XenServer 6.2.0.
 18  Storage XenMotion depends on XenServer tools All is well  Storage XenMotion is only possible on live VMs with XenServer Tools installed.
 19  16-way vCPU  64-way vCPU  No Scalability for applications
 20  advance features missing like SIOC, NIOC etc  All is well  Very Critical for production setup
¬†21 ¬†StorageLinks API’s depreciated vSphere API’s widely accepted¬† ¬†Required for tighter integration with the storages
 22  No Anti-Virus offloading  Anti-virus offloading is available  vShield endpoint in VMware helps in savings and better performance by offloading the AV activities to the single VM. Huge savings in terms of hardware required.

Leave a Reply

Back To Top
%d bloggers like this: