Tag Archives: YouTube

Life After VMware: A Comprehensive Roundup of Alternative Hypervisors

Posted on by

How did we even get here?

Welcome to the final-final video on evaluating your options if you’re coming from the world of VMware and ESXi. This video is my opus, my coup de grâce, the finale of this series that has taken up practically four solid months of my time. In this video, I’m going to attempt to aggregate and summarize as much of the information from the last four videos as I can, put a nice little bow on it, and hand it over to you.

In the last four videos, I looked at XCP-ng, Proxmox, Hyper-V, and Nutanix as alternatives to VMware ESXi and vCenter in your homelab and for your business. All four platforms have pros and cons, so I’m going to attempt to compare them based on their features and limitations in the hopes that this summary gives you some ideas on which direction you want to take with your gear or business.

If you haven’t watched the videos, I encourage you to do so to understand the depth of research that went into this summary. So with that, it’s time to commit death by PowerPoint! Let’s get to it!

Can These Products Replace VMware?

For the most part, all of these hypervisors will replace VMware ESXi and even vCenter, but the devil, friends, is always in the details. Let’s dig in.

  • XCP-ng: Yes, hands-down. It’s the most analogous to ESXi and vCenter and is free.
  • Proxmox: Yes, absolutely, with vCenter-equivalent features, added LXC container support, and, as a friend in our Discord is fond of saying, it will run on a potato, and is also free.
  • Hyper-V: Mostly yes. With the exception of some Linux OS compatibility, it will serve Windows shops well and has vCenter-equivalent features.
  • Nutanix: Yes, best suited for VMware users and businesses already invested in HCI or hyper-converged infrastructure.

All of these hypervisors will run VMs without issue, and with the exception of Hyper-V, are either free or have a free version you can run in your homelab or use to personally evaluate for your business. Now, let’s talk a bit about their underlying operating systems and how they’re deployed.

Underlying Operating Systems and Deployment

  • XCP-ng: Based on the Xen Hypervisor, it is entirely open-source. A standard deployment consists of one or more XCP-ng hosts for running virtual workloads, and either the Xen Orchestra Appliance (XOA) or a deployment of Xen Orchestra (XO) to manage XCP-ng.
  • Proxmox: Based on Debian with a customized Linux kernel, uses KVM for running VMs and LXC for running Linux containers. Deployment consists of one or more independent Proxmox hosts, each having their own web-based management consoles.
  • Hyper-V: A component of Windows Server, deployed after a complete setup of the Windows Server OS. Because Microsoft offers both a Core and the full Desktop experience version of Windows Server, footprints of a Hyper-V deployment can be dramatically different. Hyper-V is entirely closed source.
  • Nutanix: Comprises several components. AHV (Acropolis Hypervisor) is based on CentOS 7 and uses KVM for virtualization. A typical deployment involves the hypervisor followed by the Controller Virtual Machine (CVM), responsible for all management aspects of Nutanix.

Storage and Supported Storage Types

  • XCP-ng: Supports local storage, NFS, iSCSI, and HCI storage using XOSAN.
  • Proxmox: Supports local storage, NFS, Ceph for HCI storage, and many other storage formats.
  • Hyper-V: Supports all the same storage types as Windows OS, including local storage and shared storage via iSCSI.
  • Nutanix: Only supports hyper-converged storage from within the cluster itself. No external storage access is supported.

Backup Solutions

  • XCP-ng: Built-in backup and restore functionality, with third-party support from Commvault and talks of Veeam ongoing.
  • Proxmox: Native backup and restore functionality through Proxmox Backup Server, with Veeam integration announced.
  • Hyper-V: Supported by all major backup vendors, including Veeam, Commvault, Rubrik, and others.
  • Nutanix: Native support for Veeam, Rubrik, Commvault, HYCU, and others.

Live Migration, Workload Balancing, and High Availability

Live Migration

All hypervisors support live migration of virtual machine workloads between different hosts in a cluster, with the exception of Proxmox and LXC containers, which must be shut down before migrating.

Automated Workload Balancing

  • XCP-ng: Automatically migrates virtual machine workloads between hosts to balance CPU load.
  • Proxmox: Does not have built-in automated workload balancing but can use community scripts. Automated workload balancing is on their roadmap.
  • Hyper-V: Supports workload balancing for both RAM and CPU utilization using Hyper-V Failover Cluster Manager.
  • Nutanix: Natively supports workload balancing across the cluster.

All four hypervisors also support high availability as a core feature of their clustering and will restart VMs on different hosts in the cluster if a host fails or goes offline.

User Interface and Experience

  • XCP-ng: Xen Orchestra GUI is functional but feels dated. A refreshed UI/UX is in development.
  • Proxmox: The UI/UX is cluttered and needs improvement, though it has great graphing and extensive functionality.
  • Hyper-V: The worst experience, using the Microsoft Management Console framework, which is dull and fragmented.
  • Nutanix: Prism Element and Prism Central provide a clean, elegant, and highly functional user experience.

Minimum Hardware Requirements

  • XCP-ng: Requires a 64-bit x86 CPU (1.5GHz minimum, 2GHz recommended), 2GB of RAM (4GB recommended), and 46GB of disk space (70GB recommended).
  • Proxmox: Requires a 64-bit x86 CPU, 1GB of RAM (2GB recommended), and does not list a minimum storage requirement.
  • Hyper-V: Requires a 64-bit x86 CPU (1.4GHz minimum), 2GB of RAM, and 32GB of storage space for the OS install.
  • Nutanix: Requires Intel Sandy Bridge or newer, or AMD Zen or newer, 32GB of RAM, and specific storage requirements for cold and hot storage tiers.

Cost and Support

  • XCP-ng: Vates offers VMS Pro ($1000 per host per year) and VMS Enterprise ($1800 per host per year).
  • Proxmox: Four support tiers: Community (€100 per socket per year), Basic (€340 per socket per year), Standard (€510 per socket per year), and Premium (€1020 per socket per year).
  • Hyper-V: Pricing depends on the Windows Server version (Datacenter: $6,155 USD, Standard: $1,069 USD). Support is additional.
  • Nutanix: Pricing is not publicly disclosed, sold through VARs, and available as a turn-key deployment or software-only solution.

Final Thoughts

In just the last four months, the hypervisor and on-premise virtualization space has seen incredible changes. The market has responded quickly to Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware, with third-party backup solutions now supporting XCP-ng and Proxmox. Imagine what this space will look like in a year from now!

Choosing the right hypervisor depends on your specific needs and priorities:

  • XCP-ng: Best for those familiar with VMware, offering a similar deployment and management experience.
  • Proxmox: Ideal for running older hardware, needing LXC container support, and those comfortable with Linux.
  • Hyper-V: Suitable for Windows-centric environments where familiarity with Windows Server is a priority.
  • Nutanix: Offers a stellar user experience but is limited to hyper-converged infrastructure.

Watch the video here:

Evaluating Nutanix as an Alternative to VMware ESXi

Posted on by

Welcome, friends! If you can believe it, this is the fourth installment of our series on evaluating alternative hypervisors now that Broadcom is making VMware untenable for homelabs and small to medium businesses. In the last three videos, we focused on XCP-ng, Proxmox, and Hyper-V as alternatives to ESXi. If you haven’t seen those videos, check them out.

Introduction to Nutanix

Now it’s time to focus on the fourth most requested hypervisor, Nutanix. Let’s get to it!

Hey there, homelabbers and self-hosters, Rich here. This video is the fourth in our series focused on evaluating your options if you’re coming from the world of VMware and ESXi, with this video, in particular, being focused on Nutanix AOS. As always, I’ll be looking at this from a VMware perspective and sharing my thoughts and opinions along the way. Let’s start with some background on Nutanix and the history of the product.

The Nutanix Origin Story

2009: Nutanix was founded by Dheeraj Pandey, Mohit Aron, and Ajeet Singh with the vision of simplifying data centers by integrating compute, storage, and virtualization into a single solution.

2011: Nutanix launched its first product, Nutanix Complete Cluster, marking its entry into the hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) market. This innovative solution combined compute and storage into a single, scalable appliance.

2015: Nutanix introduced its own hypervisor, AHV (Acropolis Hypervisor), based on KVM and running on CentOS 7. AHV offered a cost-effective alternative to VMware and Hyper-V, emphasizing software-defined solutions.

2016: Nutanix went public with one of the most successful IPOs of the year, underlining the company’s growth and the market’s confidence in its technology.

2017 & 2018: Nutanix broadened its portfolio, introducing Nutanix Calm for application automation and orchestration and Xi Cloud services for hybrid cloud environments. The company also acquired several firms to enhance its cloud capabilities.

2020: Nutanix transitioned to a subscription model for licensing, intending to provide more flexibility to customers and predictable revenue for investors. However, this shift resulted in lower upfront revenue compared to traditional licensing. 2020 also saw a leadership change, with co-founder Dheeraj Pandey stepping down as CEO, succeeded by Rajiv Ramaswami.

2023 and Beyond: Nutanix continues to expand its cloud offerings, introducing new services to support multi-cloud and hybrid cloud strategies. With VMware’s recent ownership change, Nutanix is poised to gain market share, especially through partnerships like the one with Cisco.

Comparing Nutanix to VMware ESXi

Architecture

Both Nutanix and VMware ESXi are type-1 hypervisors but differ in deployment methodologies. ESXi is lightweight, running from RAM with a closed-source kernel. Nutanix AOS and AHV are based on CentOS 7, using disk storage for various operational needs, with closed-source intellectual property.

Performance

Performance between the two hypervisors is nearly equivalent. ESXi supports up to 896 logical CPUs and 24TB of RAM per host, while Nutanix AHV does not have published maximums for CPU cores or RAM.

Usability

  • VMware ESXi: Uses a web-based HTML5 GUI for host and VM management, with extended functionality requiring vCenter.
  • Nutanix: Uses Prism Element, an HTML5 management interface, supporting host and VM management, clustering, live migrations, and DR functionality. Prism Element can manage all aspects of HCI, similar to vCenter but without the need for additional software.

Features

  • VMware ESXi/vCenter: Offers advanced features like distributed resource scheduling, high availability, fault tolerance, vMotion, and API control, requiring additional licensing.
  • Nutanix: Provides clustering, live workload migrations, high availability, hyper-converged storage and networking, API control, and workload balancing out of the box.

Scalability

  • VMware ESXi: Manages thousands of VMs, scaling clusters up to hundreds of hosts with many thousands of VMs.
  • Nutanix: Supports up to 32 nodes per cluster, with the only limit on VMs being the physical CPU and memory. Nutanix is designed solely for HCI and does not support external SAN or NAS storage.

Support

  • VMware: Offers extensive professional support, training, certifications, and a large community.
  • Nutanix: Provides professional support, training, certifications, a public knowledge base, and a large community.

Cost

  • VMware ESXi: Recent licensing changes make it less accessible, with the free hypervisor no longer available as of February 12, 2024.
  • Nutanix: Offers subscription-based licensing on a per-core basis. Nutanix CE (Community Edition) is available for free, allowing homelab users to experiment and learn with some limitations.

Real-World Examples and Interface Comparisons

Console Interfaces

  • VMware ESXi Console: Provides basic host information and minimal management functionality.
  • Nutanix AHV Console: A typical Linux console with most management done via the web GUI.

Management GUIs

  • VMware ESXi: Features a web management UI with detailed host, VM, storage, and networking information.
  • Nutanix Prism Element: An all-encompassing management solution for HCI, similar to vCenter, but integrated into the Nutanix platform.

Likes and Dislikes

What I Like

  • User Interface: Nutanix Prism Element is well-designed with clear overviews and detailed sub-tabs. It includes a fun touch with a built-in web-based game called 2048.
  • Detailed Stats and Logging: Nutanix provides deep insights into performance and operations, rivaling what you’d need VMware Aria Operations for in a VMware environment.

What I Dislike

  • No Support for External SAN Storage: Nutanix’s strict HCI approach limits flexibility for those with traditional SAN setups.
  • Lack of Passthrough: Nutanix doesn’t support passthrough for devices, making it less suitable for certain advanced setups.
  • Complex Setup: Installing and setting up Nutanix AHV and AOS involves multiple steps and requires SSH and command-line interaction.
  • High Resource Requirements: The CVM (Controller Virtual Machine) has significant RAM requirements, starting at 16GB and potentially up to 64GB, which can be burdensome for smaller setups.

Conclusion

Nutanix offers a robust alternative to VMware ESXi, especially for businesses already invested in HCI. However, certain limitations, like no external SAN support and complex setup, may be deal-breakers for homelab enthusiasts. Despite these caveats, Nutanix is a strong contender in the hyper-converged infrastructure space.

 

Watch the full video here:

Evaluating Hyper-V as an Alternative to VMware ESXi

Posted on by

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!

Watch the full video here:

Evaluating Proxmox as an Alternative to VMawre ESXi

Posted on by

Evaluating Proxmox VE as an Alternative to VMware ESXi

With Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware, many homelab enthusiasts and small to medium businesses are seeking alternatives to VMware ESXi. Today, we delve into Proxmox VE, comparing it to our once-beloved VMware. If you missed our previous video on XCP-ng, check it out here.

The Proxmox Origin Story

Proxmox was founded in 2005 by Linux developers Dietmar and Martin Maurer. Their company, Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH, has evolved into three main products: Proxmox Virtual Environment (PVE), Proxmox Backup Server, and Proxmox Mail Gateway. Proxmox VE, first released in 2008, aims to provide an easy-to-use, scalable virtualization platform managing both virtual machines and containers in a single system.

Growth and Community Support

Over the years, Proxmox VE has introduced features such as live migration, high availability, and software-defined storage and networking. A robust community supports its development, and Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH offers enterprise support subscriptions, providing professional support and exclusive repository updates.

Proxmox VE vs. VMware ESXi: Key Comparisons

Architecture

  • VMware ESXi: A lightweight, type-1 hypervisor running from RAM with a closed-source kernel.
  • Proxmox VE: Based on Debian Linux, it continues to use disk storage for various operational needs post-boot.

Performance

Both hypervisors offer nearly equivalent performance. However, ESXi’s limits for RAM and hosts per cluster are well-defined, whereas PVE does not specify such limits.

Usability

  • VMware ESXi: Features a basic HTML5 GUI for host and VM management, with extended functionality requiring vCenter.
  • Proxmox VE: Offers a built-in management interface that includes clustering, live migrations, and backup functionality without additional software.

Features

  • VMware ESXi/vCenter: Requires additional licensing for advanced features like distributed resource scheduling, high availability, fault tolerance, and vMotion.
  • Proxmox VE: Provides clustering, live workload migrations, high availability, and workload balancing out of the box for free.

Scalability

  • VMware ESXi: Known for managing thousands of VMs, scaling clusters with vCenter.
  • Proxmox VE: Supports clustering and can manage large collections of hosts and VMs, though less commonly used in very large environments.

Support

  • VMware: Offers extensive professional support, training, certifications, and a well-maintained public knowledge base.
  • Proxmox VE: Relies on community support but also offers professional support services at different levels through Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH.

Cost

  • VMware ESXi: Recently eliminated its free hypervisor, making it less accessible.
  • Proxmox VE: Free and open-source, with professional support available for a fee. Premium support is currently priced at €1020 per socket, per year.

Real-World Examples and Interface Comparisons

Both ESXi and Proxmox VE feature built-in web management GUIs. Let’s compare their consoles and management interfaces:

Console Interfaces

  • ESXi Console: Provides basic host information and minimal management functionality, expecting most tasks to be managed via the web GUI.
  • Proxmox VE Console: Sparse, with most management done via the web GUI, lacking a text-based menu for easier troubleshooting.

Management GUIs

  • VMware ESXi: The web GUI offers a dashboard for host state, usage, and configuration, with detailed tabs for VMs, storage, and networking.
  • Proxmox VE: The GUI is more complex, reminiscent of vCenter, with extensive features for host and VM management, clustering, storage, and network configuration.

Creating Virtual Machines

Creating VMs in Proxmox is straightforward, with a wizard guiding you through the process. Unlike VMware, Proxmox supports various hardware emulation options and has native TPM support for VMs.

Pros and Cons of Proxmox VE

Pros:

  • Comprehensive feature set without additional costs.
  • Built-in clustering, live migration, and high availability.
  • Native VM backup functionality.
  • Supports both VMs and LXC containers.

Cons:

  • Busy and complex UI with steep learning curve.
  • Constant reminders about the lack of a subscription.
  • No built-in menu interface for console management.
  • Complicated upgrade process.
  • Lack of an easy migration path from VMware ESXi.

Conclusion

Proxmox VE presents a viable alternative to VMware ESXi, offering a feature-rich, cost-effective solution for homelab enthusiasts and businesses alike. While there are areas for improvement, its robust capabilities make it worth considering for your virtualization needs.

If you’re exploring different hypervisors and have a specific one in mind, let us know in the comments or join our Discord community!

Watch the Video Here:

Feel free to share your thoughts or ask any questions in the comments below. Until next time, happy homelabbing!

Evaluating XCP-ng as an Alternative to VMware ESXi

Posted on by

Introduction

With Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware, many homelab enthusiasts and small to medium businesses are reconsidering their virtualization options. VMware’s uncertain future has prompted a search for reliable, open-source alternatives. One such option is XCP-ng, a powerful and cost-effective alternative to VMware ESXi.

Background on XCP-ng

XCP-ng originated from the Xen Cloud Platform and Citrix XenServer. Citrix’s decision to open-source XenServer aimed to cut costs and compete with VMware and Microsoft. However, users were reluctant to pay for maintenance and support, leading Citrix to reintroduce limitations on the free version by 2017. This shift catalyzed the birth of XCP-ng, officially released on March 31, 2018. Since then, XCP-ng has grown, offering multiple versions and an active community.

Comparing XCP-ng and ESXi

Architecture

Both XCP-ng and VMware ESXi are type-1 hypervisors. VMware ESXi is lightweight, running from RAM after boot, with a closed-source kernel. XCP-ng, based on the Linux kernel, also uses disk storage for operational needs after booting.

Performance

Performance between XCP-ng and ESXi is nearly equivalent, though historical reports indicated I/O performance issues with XCP-ng under certain workloads. However, modern updates have largely mitigated these differences. It’s essential to consider the specific workloads and configurations when evaluating performance.

Usability

VMware ESXi excels in usability with a built-in web-based HTML5 GUI, allowing complete management of a single host without additional steps. This intuitive interface simplifies tasks like building and managing VMs, configuring vSwitches, and handling datastores. In contrast, a fresh deployment of XCP-ng lacks a local web GUI for host management. Instead, users must deploy XenOrchestra (XOA), which, while offering a rich feature set, adds complexity to the initial setup.

Features

ESXi’s advanced features, including distributed resource scheduling (DRS), high availability (HA), fault tolerance, vMotion (live migration of VMs), storage vMotion, and API control, require additional licensing. These features are robust but come at a significant cost. XCP-ng, on the other hand, includes clustering, live migrations, VM backup functionality, and automation via API calls out-of-the-box for free. With the exception of DRS, XCP-ng’s feature set closely matches that of VMware’s licensable features, providing a compelling alternative for users on a budget.

Scalability

ESXi is renowned for its scalability, capable of managing thousands of VMs and extensive clusters. It is used in some of the largest virtual environments globally, thanks to its robust architecture and comprehensive management tools. XCP-ng also supports large environments, though its adoption in complex setups is less common compared to ESXi. Xen Orchestra’s concept of pools (analogous to VMware’s clusters) allows for the management of large collections of hosts and VMs, supporting significant scaling needs.

Support

VMware offers extensive professional support, training, certifications, a well-maintained public knowledge base, and a large community. However, with Broadcom’s acquisition, the future of this support structure is uncertain. XCP-ng relies more on community support, which is active and growing. Professional support services are available through vendors like Vates, the company actively developing XCP-ng. This blend of community-driven and professional support ensures users can find help when needed.

Cost

VMware’s recent licensing changes make it less accessible to smaller users. The ESXi free version has limitations, and additional features require costly licenses. XCP-ng is entirely free and open-source, making it more cost-effective, especially for smaller deployments. Professional support services are available for a fee, but overall, XCP-ng remains budget-friendly, providing significant value without compromising functionality.

Real-World Comparison

Console and Management Interface

ESXi: Provides basic host information and management functions through a console, with extensive management via a web-based GUI. The ESXi console offers details about the physical host, including version information, hardware specifications, and management interface settings. Basic management functions like configuring the management interface, enabling SSH, and managing host power states are available from the console.

XCP-ng: Offers comprehensive host management from the console, including VM management, storage, and network configuration, surpassing ESXi in console capabilities. XCP-ng’s console allows users to start and stop VMs, manage storage, join or leave resource pools, and view detailed hardware information. This robust console management is a significant advantage for users who prefer direct control over their hosts.

Web Management Interface

ESXi: The web UI offers a polished experience with detailed host, VM, storage, and network management. The interface is intuitive, providing a clear overview of the host’s state, usage, vSwitch and port group configurations, datastores, and system information. Detailed tabs allow for in-depth management of virtual machines, storage systems, and network configurations.

XCP-ng (XOA): The interface feels cluttered but provides extensive functionality, including managing multiple hosts, pools, and VM backups. The XOA dashboard offers an overview of pools, hosts, and VMs, with detailed statistics and performance graphs available through various tabs. While the interface is less polished than ESXi’s, it includes advanced features like VM backup and restore, which are not available in ESXi’s free version.

Detailed Evaluation

User Experience

Xen Orchestra, as an interface, leaves much to be desired in terms of aesthetics and user experience. The first impression is that it looks like many other generic open-source web GUIs, with wasted space and sections that feel disorganized. Despite its functional capabilities, the user experience could be significantly improved to make it more enjoyable to use. The organization of information and the presentation in XOA often feels like an afterthought compared to VMware’s polished interface.

Premium Features and Paywalls

One of the frustrations with XOA is the seemingly arbitrary paywalls for certain features. For example, visualizations and statistics on the dashboard are behind a premium license, while similar information is accessible in other sections. Host updates require a paid license, though XOA updates do not. These inconsistencies can be annoying, especially for users accustomed to fully-featured open-source solutions. However, it’s worth noting that compiling Xen Orchestra from source can unlock these features without additional cost, though this approach requires technical proficiency.

Functionality and Configurability

Despite these drawbacks, XCP-ng offers impressive functionality. The extensive host management capabilities from the console, the ability to create pools of hosts, live migrate workloads, enable high availability, and built-in VM backup functionality are standout features. XCP-ng’s native backup capabilities eliminate the need for third-party software, providing a significant advantage over VMware, which requires additional licensing for similar features.

Network Configuration

ESXi’s virtual network configuration is more complex and offers greater configurability, with visual representations of how VMs connect to virtual networks. XCP-ng’s approach is simpler but effective, with PIFs (physical interface configurations) analogous to port groups and vSwitches in ESXi. Private networks in XCP-ng provide segmented internal communication for VMs within a host, adding flexibility to network configurations.

Conclusion

After extensive use, XCP-ng proves to be a robust and feature-rich alternative to VMware ESXi. It meets the general needs of host and VM management and offers many advanced features without additional cost. The user experience and interface design could benefit from improvements, but the core functionality and configurability make XCP-ng a compelling choice.

For those seeking a cost-effective, open-source virtualization solution, XCP-ng is a strong contender. It offers significant value, especially for homelab enthusiasts and small to medium businesses with budget constraints. The next step in our exploration will be evaluating Proxmox, so stay tuned for that assessment.

Watch the video here!