back to article Kubernetes is 'still hard' so VMware has gone all-in on container-related tech with expanded Tanzu, vSphere 7

VMware has followed through on its promise to make vSphere capable of managing both virtual machines and Kubernetes (K8s) clusters by announcing version 7 of vSphere and a plethora of other container-related tech it hopes will give developers a consistent layer of services to let them go crazy with containers. The vSphere …

  1. The Original Steve

    Hyper-V

    Rather interested in the below:

    "Despite giving away Hyper-V, Microsoft never won more than about 20 per cent of the market."

    Maybe by number of hosts installed or VM's running possibly, but in terms of customers I'd put money on it Microsoft has more Hyper-V customers than VMWare has ESXi customers.

    Source is purely my own experience: I worked at a medium sized crisp factory (600 employees) about a decade ago where I ran vSphere, and I then moved to a pharmaceutical firm with > 20,000 users who also used vSphere for a couple of years. I then left and joined a small/medium MSP with about 90 customers. 2 were using ESXi, about 60 were using Hyper-V and one was using Xen. (Rest were so small it was physical servers only or no servers at all!).

    Since then I've joined a consultancy and one customer (50,000 employees) was running vSphere and is looking to replace with Hyper-V, and another customer (800 employees) is already on Hyper-V.

    1. Erik4872

      Re: Hyper-V

      And every one of those Hyper-V customers is being encouraged to move everything to Azure, where they'll still be running Hyper-V under the covers. Microsoft has also obviously been working on features for Hyper-V that increase its usefulness in Azure and the on-prem product gets some of these.

      Server 2016 and 2019 really improved the Hyper-V experience but since it's one component of a larger OS you do have to do work with it to get usable clusters (Storage Spaces Direct, or clustering/MPIO). You also need SCVMM (just like you need VCenter for "free" ESXi) unless you want to roll your own management environment or rely on PowerShell only once your deployment gets more complex. For smaller deployments, ESXi (to me) just seems more joined up and usable for its core task.

      I guess VMWare is realizing they can't make it on hypervisor, NSX and VSAN alone anymore.

    2. Sloppy Crapmonster

      Re: Hyper-V

      I work at a SMB where our licensing costs for VSphere and Windows Datacenter (which we also license) are roughly the same. We've been running everything on VMWare products since VMWare Server 2 (the app you installed on top of Linux, back in the late 00's). Yes, we're paying for Datacenter to run on top of VSphere. We get really good deals on both of them, that will become untenable if our footprint gets much larger.

      The one huge factor influencing the platform we're on is pricing. If we added too many more hosts than what we have now, VMWare would be out of the running purely on cost. Microsoft has their *entire history* working against them, so I don't really know what I can stomach once Dell prices themselves out of the running.

      1. TonyJ Silver badge

        Re: Hyper-V

        I am sure you realise that but purchasing Windows Datacenter licenses, you are eligible for running as many virtual servers as you wish to.

        You could run Hyper-V, with SCVMM for far less than the VMware licenses are costing. Of course, that is not a comparison of features etc, just an observation that you're paying twice for roughly the same capability.

        1. Simon Sharwood, Reg APAC Editor (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: Hyper-V

          And yet VMware has ~80% market share ...

          1. TonyJ Silver badge

            Re: Hyper-V

            "...And yet VMware has ~80% market share ..."

            I think it's generally accepted that you get what you pay for and also that ultimately VMware benefit from being in the game many years before others sat up and took notice.

            One thing for sure though, if you are constrained by budget and don't need the extra features of VMware, Hyper-V and other hypervisors can certainly fill most gaps.

  2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Amazing Little Blue Pills

      Indeed and some people are now beginning to say that containers are inefficient because they duplicate stuff instead of apps simply running on one server with just the app code.

      Here they're beginning to be frowned on as they've exploded everywhere and no-one's got a handle on what they do or who is supposed to be supporting them.

  3. Simon 49

    Multi-cloud is their big bet

    Yes it's not cheap by any means, but the extra abstraction layer gets you the ability to run cloud native workloads on premises, plus have mobility of those workloads between on-prem and multiple clouds - this is worth the money for some folks, though not for everyone.

    Credit where due, VMware ease of install and lifecycle management has improved a ton the past few years, for many environments the cost is worth it for the management/ops tools. VCF is a heck of a big footprint for small shops though, they need to come up with some new Essentials like cheaper option that is limited enough to not cannibalize Enterprise sales but still has all the shiny new bits. Wavefront (now Tanzu Observer or something) and CloudHealth have been way under marketed too. Watching with interest.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020