The year 2004 might very well become known as the year of virtualization. Initially, IT pros recognized the value of virtualization technologies in test and demo environments. However, with the advent of ever more powerful systems coupled with continued improvements in virtual machine (VM) technologies, virtualization has since become a production-level technology that enables server consolidation.
VMware was first to market in the virtualization space with the release of VMware GSX Server in 2001. In October 2004, Microsoft entered the virtualization market with Virtual Server 2005, sparking much interest, especially among customers who have come to rely on VM technologies. A comparison of these two titans of virtualization leads to a clear recommendation as to the product that can best address a particular organization's needs.
The VM Architecture
Both products install on top of the base OS and provide a software layer that emulates a physical system. You can install a guest OS on each emulated system, or VM, and you can run multiple VMs concurrently as if each were installed on a separate physical system.
Each VM owns its own virtual hardware, consisting of a processor, disk, memory, and network. VMs aren't aware of other VMs as anything other than networked systems. The virtual server product handles the task of virtualizing the hardware and sharing it with all the VMs. The virtual server also provides virtual networking services that can connect VMs together as well as giving them access to external network resources.
Review Criteria
Although both products possess similar overall functionality, they also have several significant differences. In evaluating the products, the first criterion I considered was the host and guest OSs they support. The host OSs are the OS platforms on which you can install the VM software. The guest OSs are the OSs that the virtual servers can run. I also compared ease of use and overall manageability, looking at the process of creating new VMs as well as the ability to manage the virtual server and the VMs.
Finally, I compared the performance of the VMs running under each product. To check the overall performance of the guest OSs, I used SiSoftware Sandra 2005 Lite benchmarking software (http://www.SiSoftware.net). I compared the results of tests run on the VM that I created on each virtual servera vanilla installation of Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Editionto the results of baseline tests I ran on the physical machine. I performed all tests on an HP ProLiant ML350 with dual Intel Xeon 3.2GHz processors, 2GB of RAM, and a dual-channel Ultra320 SCSI controller connected to four 36GB, 15,000rpm hard drives running Windows 2003 as the host OS.
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005
Microsoft makes two versions of Virtual Server 2005: Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition. Standard Edition supports host servers with up to 4 processors; Enterprise Edition supports host servers that have as many as 32 processors. However, the product doesn't provide SMP support for the VMs running on a Virtual Server 2005 server.
By using Physical Address Extension (PAE), Virtual Server can support up to 64GB of memory, and each VM can address up to 3.6GB of memory. Both versions support a maximum of 64 VMs per host. Microsoft supports Virtual Server for use only on 32-bit host platforms.
Unsurprisingly, Virtual Server supports only Microsoft host and guest OSs, as the feature comparison in Table 1 shows. Although I used the product to run other OSs, such as Linux, I don't recommend that you do so in a production environment because of the lack of support.
I'm accustomed to using Microsoft Virtual PC, but Virtual Server is a very different animal and took a little getting used to. Instead of using a Windows-based management console, you manage Virtual Server through the Administration Website console that you see in Figure 1. You access the management program either by selecting the Administration Website option on the Virtual Server 2005 server or by pointing a browser to http://server:1024/VirtualServer/VSWebApp.exe.
Although it took a while for me to feel comfortable with it, the console made it very easy to manage Virtual Server from across the network. The Administration Website provides a thorough overview of the status of the configured VMs, including current performance data and even a mini screen view. I appreciated the no-footprint management offered by the Administration Website, but unfortunately the price you pay for it is having to run IIS 6.0 on the host. The installation process automatically configures IIS, adds the Administration Website, and sets permissions for the site, but you still have an extra element to manage.
Unlike GSX Server, Virtual Server has no wizard to step you through the process of creating VMs. Instead, you need to use the links provided by the Administration Website to manually create a virtual hard disk (VHD), a virtual network, and a VM that utilizes the VHD and virtual network. After I became familiar with the process, I found the interface fairly easy to navigate, but it lacked some of the niceties that I've come to expect from a Windows application, such as the ability to browse the file system when creating VHDs. I like the Administration Website's ability to provide remote control for all the VMs. After you create a VM, you'll probably want to install the Virtual Machine Additions, software drivers that increase screen resolution by adding an SVGA driver and enable better mouse tracking and control.
Virtual Server supports four types of VHDs: dynamically expanding, fixed-size, differencing, and linked. The host OS sees dynamically expanding and fixed-size VHDs as a large .vhd file that contains the file system for the guest VM. Dynamically expanding disks start small and automatically grow as the guest VM requires additional storage. Much like a physical hard drive, a dynamically expanding disk can grow only until it reaches its predefined limit. As you'd expect, the guest VM experiences a delay when the VHD must be expanded. Fixed-size VHDs are allocated when you create them and don't grow.
Dynamically expanding, fixed-size, and differencing VHDs support using an optional undo disk. Undo disks let you reset all changes that have been made to a dynamic, fixed-size, or differencing disk. Undo disks store all configuration and data changes made to the VM during the session and prompt you to save or discard the changes when you shut down the VM. Differencing disks let you isolate changes that occur within a guest VHD; all changes that occur in the parent VHD are stored in the differencing disk. Unlike an undo disk, which is associated with the entire VM, a differencing disk is associated with a particular VHD. Compared with GSX Server's differencing disks, Virtual Server's built-in differencing disks are a snap to create.
Linked VHDs are different from the other types of VHDs. Linked disks convert an entire host file system's partition to a VHD. Afterward, the host can no longer access that portion of the file system. You can't use linked disks with undo disks or differencing disks.
You can configure virtual networking to use either the host system's NIC or a user-defined virtual network that only VMs can access. If you use the host NIC, any VM connected to the virtual network can access the network that the host is connected to. Otherwise, the VM can access only the internal virtual network. Virtual Server can also provide a virtual DHCP server, so you don't need to configure a guest VM on an internal network to act as a DCHP server.
One especially nice feature is Virtual Server's ability to configure shared SCSI VHDs, which lets you set up Microsoft Cluster service over two VM nodes. Another welcome feature is the ability to transfer VMs created with Virtual PC 2004 to Virtual Server. One annoying limitation of Virtual Server is that, like Virtual PC, it lacks support for USB devices. Although you can use USB keyboards and mouse devices, you can't plug in USB flash drives with Virtual Server and have them recognized in the VMs. Virtual Server also has a strong set of COM-based APIs that you can use in conjunction with VBScript to create your own custom management scripts.
Microsoft offers the Virtual Server Migration Toolkit (VSMT) as a free add-on to Virtual Server. Available for download at http://www.microsoft.com/widowsserversystem/virtualserver/evaluation/vsmt.mspx, the VSMT can convert physical machines to VMs and VMware VMs to Virtual Servercompatible VMs. VMware offers a similar product, called the VMware P2V Assistant, but you must purchase it separately.
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 devicesI 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
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
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
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
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
It's too bad neither officially support Windows XP as a host PC. On the Windows side, you have to shell out $500+ for a server version of Windows to run either just to install more than one server installations in the VM.
Anonymous User -February 23, 2005
All of you forget the only real thing. You cannot compare mustang to a ferrari. You have to compare apple for apple. ESX is a completely different animal. No doubt is beats both GSX and Virtual Server 2005, it's designed differently. And heck it's supercar of virtualization... how many of you drive ferrari everyday?
Anonymous User -February 23, 2005
No wonder I canceled my subscription. How biased can you get?
By all accounts VMWare is a better product. It is 25-40% faster than VS. It offeres a web interface to manage and servers. It supports more OSs, OSs that Connectix used to support and Microsoft removed!
The only question is price. VMWare is 3 times the price, 1000$ 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
Compare VS with GSX but calling GSX a Titan? ESX needs to be reviewed against VS in a big way.
I'm performing proof of concept to virtualize an entire development infrastructure. I'm running an instance of VS and ESX on the same type hardware each - HP DL580's, 4x3.x Xeons, 32GB RAM, MSA-1000 external storage, Gig Nics, etc. Usability vs benchmarking - that needs to be addressed:
MS Virtual server is extremely slow to create disks and install OS's initially. The VMs seem to run fairly well afterwards however actually 'using and administering' a VS solution is unbearable at times. Considering having a 'gold' server/workstation image that is built/SysPreped. Naturally one would want to copy and deploy for users to use. With only a couple of machines nothing much was noticed however after about the 6th system, if an image was copied during business hours, the existing VMs would become extremely sluggish. The bottleneck is disk I/O. I have 25 servers running on VS and developers are not productive if another user copies files and/or the Host OS is administered. Another issue with VS is memory allocation. In VS memory is 'hard-set' therefore if a Guest OS is allocated 2GB of memory and only averages 512MB (non-peak times) that's 1.5GB of memory that is wasted.
Alternatively, ESX uses their own file system (VMFS2) which does not have the disk I/O issues that VS has. Simply put, I can actually copy a file through the ESX web interface or with Linux without bringing all the other VMs to a crawl. Memory is reserved, shared therefore I don't have to worry - ESX is smooth and sweet for all it does. I have over 25 VMs running on ESX, the system is stable, easy to manage and users that were on VS are begging to be put on the ESX solution. The end user's biggest comment - I can't do my job, the system is too slow. From management's perspective - employee morale was extremely low when the users are using VS VMs which results in a loss of productivity. When users were put on ESX VMs, there was a surge of morale and momentum. The cost for ESX is high however the cost savings isn't always with the product, developers cost money - VS would definitly cost us more in 'man' hours to complete. We saved money by initially spending more money to get the superior product.
Anonymous User -February 25, 2005
As a senior IT consultant that subscribes to this magazine, I am very disapointed in the lack of usefull information in this article. Anyone could have picked up the spec sheets of the products you covered and written this article.
Your performance test is simply invalid. If you did not push each system to resource saturation to see how it then reacts, you have obviously never worked on a server consolidation project in an attempt to save a company money.
I would have liked you to include all the Microsoft and all the VMware products. It would have been nice to have a comparisson of the features **and** the cost to get an understanding of their value. You could have provided some guidance as to where you feel each product would fit into an organization. (Some people only want basic features at the lowest possible cost, while other need to see the value equation behind the cadillac ESX product for data center consolidation).
In the end, you have not provided any real information to help your audience
decide which product would be best for their needs.
If I went on any further, I might as well write my own article...
Anonymous User -February 25, 2005
i thought virtual server would be a good idea for testing the upgrade of a few of my servers. unfortunately recreating those servers is less than trivial, as the guest os's won't "see" the scsi tape drive on the machine. forcing me to do a bit of a fiddle to try and get it work another way
Anonymous User -March 02, 2005
As has been pointed out, the real test should have been on how many VMs per processor did each platform run on a given hardware, not setup one VM and do some tests. Virtual Server 2005 really sits between VMware Workstation and GSX Server, with an SMP aware host OS and a web GUI being the main differences. It is not a good comparison to compare it against GSX for the simple reason that VMware has a GSX Linux version. What that gets you is the ability to strip the Linux kernal and packages (isn't Open Source great?) so that you have a very lean and fast host OS-something like a poor man's ESX. With Virtual Server 2005, you are stuck with what comes with the OS, including IIS, Outlook Express, etc-you know, things that all enterprise servers need in order to run. Now, if Microsoft were really serious about enterprise virtual computing, they would release a srippped down version of Server 2003, maybe something like embedded NT or even, gasp, port the thing to Linux! We get 5 to 8 VMs (doing actual work) per CPU and our testing shows VS2005 crawling at about 5 VMs for an equivalent dual CPU system-that's 2.5 VMs per CPU.
Anonymous User -March 07, 2005
I would never be able to recommend a VM solution that requires a host OS. The general overhead of moving computing through two OS worlds is unacceptable and host OS issues affect all VM's --not very nice when you have 10 or more production servers above it. Nice try Microsoft - no cigar yet.
Anonymous User -March 11, 2005
I found a good review of Microsoft Virtual Server and its benchmark
http://capitalhead.com/v4/Default.aspx?tabid=27&newsType=ArticleView&articleId=4
At least it gives you some idea of what to expect relative to your physical machine.
Anonymous User -March 13, 2005
Benchmarking 1 VM with SiSoft Sandra is meaningless, unless you plan to run only 1 VM, in which case you may as well stick to native.
Those that do these benchmarks seem to assume that obtaining a figure of N% peformance in a single VM will divide equally when you bring up more VM. Each real world mix of OS and apps will vary, but blindly assuming that a single VM runs at N%, therefore each VM will run at N% is completely misleading, likewise two machines will run at N%/2 is also misleading.
You have to try these things for yourself, but remember that in a VM the timers are going to fluctuate, meaning that time based perf counters will be unlikely to be reliable.
What the capitalhead.com reviewer failed to do was record the performance stats of the host to determine what load the virtualisation is causing itself, along with the other windows services that might consume resources now and then.
Anonymous User -March 16, 2005
There is absolutley no need to mention ESX here because the author sets the tone for the comparison. The comparison was intended to compare to like projects Virtual Server 2005 and Vmware GSX. ESX is in another league and is intended for different use. Microsoft does not have a product that competes with ESX.
Anonymous User -March 20, 2005
I guess the capitalhead.com review was aimed at comparing at the most basic levels and what specific performance benefits exist between ESX and VS.
Anonymous User -March 29, 2005
This was in no way an extensive benchmark for multiple VMs on a single system. The reviewer also listed a more comprehensive benchmark which was published at roughly the same time from Fujitsu-Siemens. http://capitalhead.com/v4/Default.aspx?tabid=27&newsType=ArticleView&ArticleID=8&PageID=14
Then click on the link under Further Reading
Anonymous User -March 29, 2005
Like so many reviews I've seen over the years, the author seems to wnat to look at everything, including the most trivial features at the expense of giving real information. I suspect that the author only spent an hour or two on either product. Considering the many shortfalls of VS2005, I find it hard to understand how both products can be of "excellent quality" according to the author. Regarding the products themselves, the price of VS2005 Standard Edition is on par with VMWare Workstation. It's performance and features are still inferior though.
Anonymous User -May 31, 2005
I purchased VS 2005 based, partially, on this review. Then I found this article on the MS website: kb897614. Nice, it lists which applications are not supported under VS2005.
Then this recently came out about the additional fee to fix the problems with the existing version. http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,104160,00.html?source=NLT_AM&nid=104160
I am NOT a Microsoft basher, I like their products and supporting their products gives me a job, but seriously, this is a pretty bogus situation.
I have since told my superiors I made a mistake and talked them into a copy of GSX 3.2....
Bob
Free CDs Offer Fundamental Content for IT Pros Are you up to speed on the latest technologies and solutions? Don't miss out on your chance to get up to speed quickly on fundamental, in-depth information on some of the hottest topics in our library of content.
Let Your Users Reset Their Own Passwords: Free Download Try a 30 day free trial of Desktop Authority Password Self-Service – it provides an easy-to-use, robust system for allowing users to reset their own forgotten passwords or locked accounts.
Get Windows IT Pro & Mark Minasi’s Favorite Power Tools Guide Order Windows IT Pro now and get "More of Mark Minasi's Favorite Power Tools"--a in-depth guide to the most useful Windows commands --FREE with your paid order! Subscribe today, and save 58% off the cover price!
Deep Dive into VMware vSphere, eLearning Series Join John Savill to explore the major functionality capabilities of the vSphere virtualization platform, including identification of the changes from ESX 3.5.