Today’s post will be the first in a short series of comparisons between RHEV 3, vSphere 5, and Hyper-V. This first post will cover the cost comparison between the 3. And while most of the time I like to wait until the end to announce the overall results, I think you can figure it out on your own that my own bias is towards KVM or KVM-based virtualization. So, in the spirit of “cutting to the chase”:
RHEV FTW!! Woohoo!! End of article!! (Just kidding about the last part.)
Here are some assumptions and other information. The pricing is based on “list”, so there is no reflection of any discounts that you might be entitled to as a customer. Additionally, I am aware that Red Hat, Microsoft, and VMware all have different pricing models, so a true “apples-to-apples” comparison is challenge. And if you didn’t know it, they all do that on purpose.
Last, the pricing comparison includes the Management Tools, Support, licensing, Hypervisors, and Operating Systems necessary to virtualize 50 RHEL servers and 50 Windows servers with the following specs:
- Hypervisor servers each have 2 x 6 core CPU’s (RHEV & vSphere) and 64GB of RAM (Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Hyper-V requires 4 x 6 core CPU’s….)
- Support is Premium 24×7
- Live Migration & VM Failover
- 50 x RHEL 6 guests
- 50 x Windows Server 2008 Enterprise guests
- The cost calculator used was built by “Alinean”
So, how about some charts and numbers? This first chart breaks out the different costs associated with the initial investment (1st year) as well as the additional costs over time (3 year TCO).
Now, the more observant reader is going say “Wait a minute, you bumped up the server cost for Hyper-V!!” Yes, yes I did. It was either bump up the number of physical servers or lower the number of virtual servers; Hyper-V doesn’t support the same guest density as RHEV or vSphere. And since I already said we were comparing an equal number of virtual servers, it meant bumping up the physical hardware requirements.
The other visual discrepancy for Hyper-V is the notion that it costs more to run Windows on Windows.. If it costs $24k to run Windows on RHEV or vSphere, shouldn’t it cost $24k to run it on Hyper-V? Not really. You either have to purchase “Enterprise Edition” with a few included Windows guest entitlements or upgrade to “Datacenter Edition” in order to get unlimited Windows guest entitlements. Standard Edition is not really an option as it doesn’t include basic features such as Live Migration of guests.
In other words it’s cheaper to run Windows on RHEL…
As for the VMware pricing, it comes down to this: VMware charges for the licenses and support. Red Hat does not charge a license fee or annual maintenance fee – only the annual support subscription.
So lets take a more visual approach to where the money is going:
- Hyper-V requires additional hardware & licensing (SCVM) for the same number of VM’s
- VMware requires a substantial amount of $$ in licensing in addition to support
- Red Hat’s lack of license cost and lower hardware requirements are a huge money saver
That’s part 1, pure and simple. Red Hat has a lower initial investment and a lower TCO over 3 years.
var _gaq = _gaq || ; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-36272553-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);