Windows IT Pro is the leading independent community for IT professionals deploying Microsoft Windows server and client applications and technologies.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


March 2005

Virtual-Server Face-Off

Compare the two titans of virtualization: Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 and VMware GSX Server
RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More Performance Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

VMware GSX Server 3.1
Now in its third release, VMware GSX Server offers two licensing levels: one for systems with one or two CPUs, and the other for systems with up to 32 CPUs. Like its competitor, GSX Server doesn't provide SMP support for the guest OSs and lets you run a maximum of 64 VMs concurrently on one host, depending on the resources the VMs require. GSX Server supports up to 64GB of memory on PAE-enabled Windows systems, and each VM can address up to 3.6GB of memory.

When I wrote this review, GSX Server officially supported only 32-bit hosts. However, the product also provides "experimental support" for 64-bit hosts, which basically means that they work but aren't recommended for use in a production setting. I expect VMware to announce official support for 64-bit host OSs after Microsoft releases Windows 2003 for 64-bit Extended Systems later this year.

GSX Server has a decided advantage over Virtual Server in the area of supported host and guest OSs. In addition to supporting all Windows OSs, GSX Server supports a variety of Linux systems as hosts, as you can see in Table 1. The product's client OS support is equally extensive.

If you've used VM Workstation or an earlier version of GSX Server, you'll find managing GSX Server to be a breeze. Figure 2 shows the Virtual Machine Console. Although it provides decidedly less information than Virtual Server's Administration Website, it's easier to use and noticeably more responsive.

Setting up new VMs under GSX Server is decidedly easier than using Virtual Server's piecemeal VM creation process. GSX Server's New Virtual Machine Wizard provides an easy-to-use interface that steps you through VM, VHD, and network creation. You'll probably want to install VMware's VMTools on all your VMs. VMTools provides a higher-performance video driver and enables cutting and pasting text between the VMs and the host.

VMware gives you several options for remotely managing GSX Server. The Windows-based Virtual Machine Console can connect to networked GSX Server systems. A Web-based management interface enables basic VM management functions, such as displaying and controlling VMs. You can also use a set of scripting APIs for Perl and COM, called the vmPerl and vmCOM APIs, respectively.

GSX Server supports two basic types of virtual disks: raw and virtual. Raw disks directly access a local disk partition. Virtual disks appear to the GSX Server host OS as a file. That file, which has an extension of .vmdk, stores the VM's entire file system. You can dynamically expand virtual disk files, or you can preallocate files when you create them.

GSX Server's undo disks let you save or discard all the changes in a VM at the end of a session, and virtual disks have a snapshot feature that lets you capture the current state of the virtual disk. GSX Server also supports differencing, but the associated process is manual and isn't nearly as easy to use as Virtual Server's differencing disk capability.

You have a choice of three types of virtual networking for GSX Server VMs: host-only, Network Address Translation (NAT), and bridged. Host-only networking restricts you to internal VMs that have no outside connections. The NAT option lets VMs connect to the outside network using the host IP address. GSX Server provides its own built-in DHCP server for host-only and NAT configurations. Bridged networking lets VMs access the outside network. Alternatively, you can choose None to disable the network hardware.

GSX Server lets you set up Microsoft Cluster service using shared SCSI VHDs. You can also transfer to GSX Server any VMs that you've created with VMware Workstation. One key advantage GSX Server has over Virtual Server 2005 is full support for USB devices—I could freely transfer data between GSX Server VMs and USB flash drives.

Performance
To test performance, I used the Sandra benchmarking software's combined performance index tests running on a fresh installation of Windows 2003, Enterprise Edition. I tested a variety of system performance factors, including basic display performance, memory access speed, and file-access and networking performance.

For Virtual Server 2005, I performed all tests on the local server that was running Virtual Server, using the Virtual Machine Remote Control Client running in full-screen mode. I configured the VM to use 384MB of RAM and used a fixed SCSI VHD so the test wouldn't be affected by dynamic expansion. The VHD was also on a different disk spindle than the drive on which the host OS was installed. To determine whether the Virtual Machine Additions made a significant performance difference, I first ran a set of tests without the Virtual Machine Additions installed, then ran another set after installing them.

In all the performance tests, the VMs running under Virtual Server were slower than those running under GSX Server. The CPU arithmetic test (Figure 3) shows Virtual Server lagging behind GSX Server by about 20 percent. The multimedia test (Figure 4) showed similar results. The other tests were closer, but GSX Server held onto a 17.5 percent advantage in file system performance (Figure 5) and a 5 percent edge in network performance (Figure 6). The presence of the Virtual Machine Additions gave a bigger boost to Virtual Server's file and network access performance than it did to the product's arithmetic and multimedia performance.

I configured GSX Server's VM to use 384MB of RAM and a preallocated virtual SCSI hard disk that was located on a separate physical hard disk from the host system's OS. I ran two sets of tests: the first without VMTools and the second with VMTools. As Figures 3 through 6 show, VMs running under GSX Server provide notably better performance than those running under Virtual Server. Considering that GSX Server is in its third release and Virtual Server is in its first release, it wasn't surprising that GSX Server is faster.

A Clear Choice
Both products are of excellent quality, and neither gave me any significant problem. If you need to run Linux or other guest OSs in a production environment, VMware GSX Server is the clear choice. VMware officially supports most popular Linux distributions. You can find more information about or download a 30-day evaluation version of VMware GSX Server 3.1 at http://www.vmware.com/products/server/gsx_features.html.

For those who have a Microsoft-only environment, however, Virtual Server 2005 is the better value. Significantly less costly than GSX Server, Virtual Server offers all the same capabilities for Windows guest OSs, albeit slightly slower performance. For more information about Virtual Server 2005 or to download a 180-day evaluation version, go to http://www.microsoft.com/virtualserver.



VMware GSX Server 3.1
Contact: VMware * 650-475-5000 or 877-486-9273
Web: http://www.vmware.com
Price: $1400 for two-CPU license; $2800 for unlimited-CPU license
Summary
Pros: Excellent support for multiple OSs; easy to use; good VM performance
Cons: High price; support for VMware P2V Assistant migration is an add-on
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Recommendation: The only choice for shops that want to run heterogeneous OSs as VMs


Microsoft Virtual Server 2005
Contact: Microsoft * 425-936-8080
Web: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/
virtualserver/default.mspx
Price: $499 for Standard Edition; $999 for Enterprise Edition
Summary
Pros: Web-based remote management; easy-to-use differencing disks
Cons: Limited host and guest OS support; no support for USB flash devices; requires IIS 6.0
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Recommendation: The better value for Microsoft-only environments

End of Article

   Previous  1  [2]  Next  


Reader Comments
I find it odd that you did not mention VMware's ESX Server, which is years ahead of all others in the virtual space. VMware positions GSX more toward the testing and dev areas and focuses on ESX for production, giving admins granular control at the cpu, nic, memory and disk level. Talk to real customers who have used both MSVS and GSX...MSVS is truly 1.0 and of course pushes the sale of more MS OS's. Maybe a follow up article mentioning VMware ESX and it's competitor would be more helpful to readers.

Anonymous User February 22, 2005 (Article Rating: )


I can see who's payroll your on. "Compare the two titans of virtualization" well you left out the only Titan of Virtualization and that's VMware ESX Server. As for cost ESX Server is a better choice from a price/performance standpoint than either GSX Server or Virtual Server not to mention the other functionality that cannot be matched. We run 14 VMs on 2-way systems using ESX Server. We tested both GSX and Virtual Server and we found that the performance and consolidation ratio was less than half of ESX Server with GSX at 6 to 1 and Virtual Server at 4 to 1. ESX Server gives us a per VM cost of around $850 where Virtual Server and/or GSX would cost us $1000+ per VM. Best Choice, Only Choice ESX Server and we are an all Windows Shop!

Anonymous User February 22, 2005 (Article Rating: )


I can see who's payroll you both are on. I spoke with VMware re: ESX, and after having a mild stroke for what they charge for ESX, I upgraded most of our datacenter with new hardware and MS Virtual Server... ESX is nice but ridiculously overpriced.

Anonymous User February 22, 2005


I still remember the times when Outlook and Outlook Express could not be used on the same PC. Is Microsoft really as reliant as GSX, who's technology is on the market since 1998. Virtual server I found out, certainly is no match for ESX, where you don't have to be bothered with multi-million lines of Microsoft code that does not always work the way it is supposed to do, and just takes up valuable memory. Have you ever seen live applications being migrated from one physical server to another without disruption? Only VMware's VMotion can do that!

Anonymous User February 23, 2005 (Article Rating: )


I'm not sure that running Sandra is a valid test, especially if you only ran one VM, as in the real world the whole point is to be able to virtualise multiple machines and see how the perform as a whole. If you only run one VM, then all you know is how one VM runs when it has the machine pretty much to itself. Once multiple VMs start running, performance may differ considerably. A plaform that showed great results initially may fall by the wayside once multiple machines are running.

Just virtualising physical servers is really only one piece of the equation. Where ESX really scores is with technologies such as VMotion and the memory overcomit / page sharing. The savings made in RAM costs can very quickly show up the false enconomy of saving money on the software cost. One key problem with Virtual server is the constant level of patches that need applying, having to reboot your host OS because IE requires a security patch is a serious issue when you are hosting multiple VMs, especially if the VMs themselves are not running Windows.

The white paper by RapidApp shows cost savings coming in when 8 or more VMs run on a host. At that level of consolidation, ESX is really the only game in town.


Anonymous User February 23, 2005


I kind of agree with some of the comments - however it is valid to compare MS Virtual Server with VMware GSX server - as they have similar architectures. There really is no comparison from MS to ESX server - ESX is in a totally different league - and trying to compare it to MS Vitrtual server would have done ESX an injustice - and given Virtual Server more credit than it deserves.

Anonymous User February 23, 2005


While the article and results are interesting, they would be far more useful if ESX was added to the mix, and performance tests with 4, 8, and 16 VMs were run. This would give you real world results, and determine the best value - $/VM.

Anonymous User February 23, 2005 (Article Rating: )


It's too bad neither officially support Windows XP as a host PC. On the Windows side, you have to shell out $500+ for a server version of Windows to run either just to install more than one server installations in the VM.

Anonymous User February 23, 2005 (Article Rating: )


All of you forget the only real thing. You cannot compare mustang to a ferrari. You have to compare apple for apple. ESX is a completely different animal. No doubt is beats both GSX and Virtual Server 2005, it's designed differently. And heck it's supercar of virtualization... how many of you drive ferrari everyday?

Anonymous User February 23, 2005


No wonder I canceled my subscription. How biased can you get?

By all accounts VMWare is a better product. It is 25-40% faster than VS. It offeres a web interface to manage and servers. It supports more OSs, OSs that Connectix used to support and Microsoft removed!

The only question is price. VMWare is 3 times the price, 1000$ more. For the performance gains the 1000$ can save you from having to buy and extra server, with a Microsoft OS of course!

Anonymous User February 24, 2005 (Article Rating: )


 See More Comments  1   2   3 

You must be a registered user or online subscriber to comment on this article. Please log on before posting a comment. Are you a new visitor? Register now




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
Command Prompt Tricks

One reader shares his tip for setting up the command prompt to reflect a remote path. ...

WinInfo Short Takes: Week of November 9, 2009

An often irreverent look at some of the week's other news, including some more Windows 7 sales momentum, some Sophos stupidity, Microsoft's cloud computing self-loathing, more whining from the browser makers, Zoho's "Fake Office," and much, much more ...

Understanding File-Size Limits on NTFS and FAT

A general confusion about files sizes on FAT seems to stem from FAT32's file-size limit of 4GB and partition-size limit of 2TB. ...


Related Events WinConnections and Microsoft® Exchange Connections

Deep Dive into Windows Server 2008 R2 presented by John Savill

Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

Windows OSs eBooks Understanding and Leveraging Code Signing Technologies

A Guide to Windows Certification and Public Keys

SQL Server Administration for Oracle DBAs

Related Windows OSs Resources Introducing Left-Brain.com, the online IT bookstore
Looking for books, CDs, toolkits, eBooks? Prime your mind at Left-Brain.com

Discover Windows IT Pro eLearning Series!
Clear & detailed technical information and helpful how-to's, all in our trademark no-nonsense format


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro DevProConnections IT Job Hound
Left-Brain.com Technology Resource Directory asp.netPRO ITTV Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 © 2009 Penton Media, Inc. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement