As Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware makes VMware ESXi increasingly untenable for homelabs and small to medium businesses, it’s time to consider alternative hypervisors. This is the third installment in our series, following our evaluations of XCP-ng and Proxmox VE. Now, let’s delve into Microsoft Hyper-V, the third most requested hypervisor.
The Hyper-V Origin Story
Microsoft Hyper-V first launched on June 26, 2008, as part of an update to Windows Server 2008, marking Microsoft’s entry into the hardware virtualization space. Later that year, on October 1, Microsoft released the stand-alone Hyper-V server, built on Windows Server 2008 Core, which was freely available.
Key Milestones:
- 2009: Windows Server 2008 R2 brought live migration of VMs and expanded support for operating systems.
- 2012: Windows Server 2012 introduced Hyper-V Replica for disaster recovery, a new virtual hard disk format, and network virtualization.
- 2016: Windows Server 2016 added support for Docker and containers, nested virtualization, and shielded VMs for improved security.
- 2019: Windows Server 2019 focused on cloud and hybrid cloud environments, integrating Hyper-V with Azure services.
Although Microsoft announced that Hyper-V Server 2019 would be the final stand-alone version, Hyper-V continues to be a component of Windows Server, with support for Hyper-V Server 2019 ending in 2029.
Comparing Hyper-V to VMware ESXi
Architecture
Both Hyper-V and ESXi are type-1 hypervisors but differ in deployment. ESXi is lightweight, running from RAM with a closed-source kernel, while Hyper-V, part of Windows Server, varies in footprint depending on whether the Core or Desktop version of Windows Server is used. Hyper-V is also closed-source.
Performance
Performance between Hyper-V and ESXi is nearly equivalent. ESXi supports up to 896 logical CPUs and 24TB of RAM per host, whereas Hyper-V supports up to 512 logical CPUs and 48TB of RAM in Windows Server 2022.
Usability
- VMware ESXi: Uses a web-based HTML5 GUI for host and VM management, with extended functionality requiring vCenter.
- Hyper-V: Lacks a web-based management interface and relies on various Windows OS or PowerShell tools. Management can be done using Hyper-V Manager, Failover Cluster Manager, or SCVMM.
Features
- VMware ESXi/vCenter: Offers advanced features like distributed resource scheduling, high availability, fault tolerance, and vMotion, requiring additional licensing.
- Hyper-V: Nearly feature-complete with VMware, supporting clustering, live migrations, high availability, and workload balancing out of the box.
Scalability
- VMware ESXi: Manages over a thousand VMs per host, scaling up to 2500 hosts with vCenter.
- Hyper-V: Supports over a thousand VMs per host and up to 64 nodes per cluster with up to 8,000 VMs.
Support
- VMware: Offers extensive professional support, training, certifications, and a large community.
- Hyper-V: Provides support through Microsoft’s website, community forums, and direct contact. Windows Server certifications are available, but none specifically for Hyper-V.
Cost
- VMware ESXi: Recently eliminated its free hypervisor, increasing costs.
- Hyper-V: Licensing costs depend on the Windows Server version. Windows Server 2022 Datacenter costs $6,155 USD, supporting unlimited Windows VMs, while the Standard edition costs $1,069 USD for up to two Windows VMs. There are no licensing limits for Linux VMs.
Real-World Examples and Interface Comparisons
Console Interfaces
- VMware ESXi Console: Provides basic host information and minimal management functionality.
- Hyper-V: Integrated into Windows Server, with no discrete console.
Management GUIs
- VMware ESXi: Features a web management UI with detailed host, VM, storage, and networking information.
- Hyper-V Manager: An MMC-based console for managing Hyper-V, offering basic VM and host management functions.
Likes and Dislikes
What I Like
- Hyper-V is nearly feature-complete with VMware ESXi.
- Integration with Windows Server simplifies management for Windows-centric environments.
What I Dislike
- User Experience: Hyper-V Manager’s MMC interface is outdated and lacks detailed host statistics and VM performance metrics.
- Linux Compatibility: Hyper-V’s support for Linux is inconsistent, making it less suitable for homelabs focused on experimentation and learning.
- Limited Management Tools: Hyper-V Manager is the default but suboptimal tool for managing Hyper-V, with better alternatives like Windows Admin Center or SCVMM requiring additional installation or configuration.
- Perception: Hyper-V often feels like an afterthought by Microsoft, driven more by cost considerations than superiority as a virtualization platform.
Conclusion
While Hyper-V can run VMs and may suit Windows-centric environments, its limitations and inconsistent Linux support make it less ideal as a replacement for ESXi. For those seeking a hypervisor for homelabs or diverse environments, Hyper-V may not be the best choice.
If you have thoughts or suggestions for other hypervisors to review, let us know in the comments or join our Discord community!