Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : VPS Hosting : MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 <--> Virtuozzo

[rich_en_pulpe]

Why on earth would anyone still wanna buy the unstable overpriced Virtuozzo software when there is a Microsoft variant available for only $250 _to buy_ (instead of paying that every month)?

The max 4 processor license even costs less: $99 !!

Anyone got a good reason?

edit:
ms vserv: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...r/default.mspx
pricing: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...fault.mspx#EYC

[panopticon]

I'm curious - have some examples of providers offering this in the real world?

[SolarVPS]

In terms of Windows VPS there is a very good reason. With Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, each individual Virtual Server would require its own Windows Standard or Windows Enterprise license. Windows Standard 2003 goes for about 600-700 retail so you can see why that isnt cost effective from a providers standpoint. MS Virtual Server seems to be a good option for small businesses who want to build out an Active Directory network by using one large server to host many smaller servers that need individual Windows installs, for example: Exchange server, primary domain controller, backup domain controller, file server, etc.

[spiv]

There are two issues here: technology and business strategy

Technology: Currently there are two different approaches in use. The "paravirtualization" used by Virtuozzo, OpenVZ, and XEN and the "true virtualization" used by VMWare and Microsoft Virtual Server. (In the near future, with hardware VT support from Intel and AMD processors, these two approaches will converge and start to look very similiar.)

Business: Linux hosts only need to consider the cost of the virtualization software if not using open source. Windows hosts need to consider licensing for both the host OS, virtualization, and the guest OS (when the guest is not Linux).

However, the prices stated in this thread for Windows licenses are not accurate. Any legitimate (i.e. legal) Windows hosting provider must be using the Microsoft SPLA licensing, not the retail license. Under SPLA, software licenses are a monthly fee but quite reasonable and are obviously factored into the cost of the providers hosting plans.

Originally Posted by Aaton35

In terms of Windows VPS there is a very good reason. With Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, each individual Virtual Server would require its own Windows Standard or Windows Enterprise license. Windows Standard 2003 goes for about 600-700 retail so you can see why that isnt cost effective from a providers standpoint. MS Virtual Server seems to be a good option for small businesses who want to build out an Active Directory network by using one large server to host many smaller servers that need individual Windows installs, for example: Exchange server, primary domain controller, backup domain controller, file server, etc.

[SolarVPS]

spiv,
Your statement about the differentiation between business and technology is an excellent point. I would love to hear your hypothesis/research on how these types of virtualization will converge in the future. Also, the pricing I mentioned was entirely accurate retail pricing which I specified. Most providers will have Microsoft Volumne licensing and, as you say, will pay a monthly fee for those licenses. Typically, Windows Server 2003 will cost a provider roughly $20/mo. Even with the cost of 1 W2k3 license and the cost of Virtuozzo, it would still be significantly less than paying for 31 $20 dollar per month Windows licenses plus the cost of MS Virtual Server. This also raises the point about keeping Virtualization cost effective from a hosting standpoint as the higher the cost of providing the virtual solution, the closer it gets to dedicated server pricing and the more customer will tend to lean towards a dedicated server as the preferred solution.

[spiv]

Since there are many readers here and some that still do not understand that you cannot host using retail licenses, I wasn't questioning the pricing of retail windows licenses, just re-inforcing/educating those that don't know that SPLA is the only option for hosting. Sorry for any confusion on that.

Overall, the key difference I believe is the nature of the solution and the therefore the value it provides.

Virtuozzo tends to favor the host by easily allowing overselling and in fact, keyword analysis on this forum would probably show the greatest affinity between "Virtuozo hosting desired" and "cheapest VPS wanted".

Conversely, those seeking VM hosting seem to be more "clueful" about the resource allocation/performance benefits of a VM hosting solution and also either need, or prefer, to have the ability to completely control the guest OS themselves.

Just as GoDaddy providing shared hosting at $3.95/mo hasn't killed of the rest of the industry, I don't see cheap VPS preventing higher priced, but value-based VM hosting plans.

For better or worse, Virtuozzo has become synonymous with "cheap VPS". In the short run, they have achieved a lot of market share, but I think in the long-run they might find it very hard to shake that perception.

It remains to be seen whether "cheap VPS hosting" is a long-term product strategy for hosting companies or just a short-term transition until enough early adopters that suffer poor performance and response time continue to spread the word to avoid cheap VPS if you care about your site or web application.

The problem is there is a lot of overlap in pricing and performance between shared hosting and VPS/VM hosting. Unlike shared hosting vs. dedicated servers where the higher priced dedicated server is always higher performance, there are VPS plans that perform worse than shared servers and vice-versa.

This creating a lot of confusion in the market for both hosts and customers. Over time, this will shake-out and things will probably be clearer.

Originally Posted by Aaton35

spiv,
Your statement about the differentiation between business and technology is an excellent point. I would love to hear your hypothesis/research on how these types of virtualization will converge in the future. Also, the pricing I mentioned was entirely accurate retail pricing which I specified. Most providers will have Microsoft Volumne licensing and, as you say, will pay a monthly fee for those licenses. Typically, Windows Server 2003 will cost a provider roughly $20/mo. Even with the cost of 1 W2k3 license and the cost of Virtuozzo, it would still be significantly less than paying for 31 $20 dollar per month Windows licenses plus the cost of MS Virtual Server. This also raises the point about keeping Virtualization cost effective from a hosting standpoint as the higher the cost of providing the virtual solution, the closer it gets to dedicated server pricing and the more customer will tend to lean towards a dedicated server as the preferred solution.

[BeDifferentSolutions]

Originally Posted by spiv

Overall, the key difference I believe is the nature of the solution and the therefore the value it provides.

Virtuozzo tends to favor the host by easily allowing overselling and in fact, keyword analysis on this forum would probably show the greatest affinity between "Virtuozo hosting desired" and "cheapest VPS wanted".

Conversely, those seeking VM hosting seem to be more "clueful" about the resource allocation/performance benefits of a VM hosting solution and also either need, or prefer, to have the ability to completely control the guest OS themselves.

Just as GoDaddy providing shared hosting at $3.95/mo hasn't killed of the rest of the industry, I don't see cheap VPS preventing higher priced, but value-based VM hosting plans.

For better or worse, Virtuozzo has become synonymous with "cheap VPS". In the short run, they have achieved a lot of market share, but I think in the long-run they might find it very hard to shake that perception.

It remains to be seen whether "cheap VPS hosting" is a long-term product strategy for hosting companies or just a short-term transition until enough early adopters that suffer poor performance and response time continue to spread the word to avoid cheap VPS if you care about your site or web application.

The problem is there is a lot of overlap in pricing and performance between shared hosting and VPS/VM hosting. Unlike shared hosting vs. dedicated servers where the higher priced dedicated server is always higher performance, there are VPS plans that perform worse than shared servers and vice-versa.

This creating a lot of confusion in the market for both hosts and customers. Over time, this will shake-out and things will probably be clearer.

Great two post spiv.

The key thing here is time. Unfortunately education and experience with 'new' technology or new software takes time. The majority of consumers are still star struck by the buzzword VPS to care less about what's under the hood. In a few years 'VPS' will be just as common place in vocabulary for consumers as 'shared'. They will then begin to focus on the important stuff. Not just "cheap" and "Virtuozzo". In fact this is starting to happen more often. When we started selling VPSs about 5 years ago no one asked what virtualization we used. Now some people do.

Not sure I agree with your comment on Virtuozzo having a hard time shaking their perception (at least your perception). They are pretty focused on their market/niche within the world of virtualization. They are focusing on the masses. I believe their key competitors will focus on the enterprise side. So in my opinion "cheap VPS hosting" IS a long-term product strategy for most hosting companies and not just a short-term transition. However some will need to run the course you suggest as we all can't compete on price.

[BeDifferentSolutions]

PS - I just looked at your site. No wonder you use "cheap" and "Virtuozzo" interchangeable. You are a Virtual Machine guy. You are starting what many will soon follow - the pushing of the enterprise side to justify higher pricing. I bet you can't wait for the consumer to get more educated.

[BrandonSCSN]

Originally Posted by Aaton35

In terms of Windows VPS there is a very good reason. With Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, each individual Virtual Server would require its own Windows Standard or Windows Enterprise license. Windows Standard 2003 goes for about 600-700 retail so you can see why that isnt cost effective from a providers standpoint. MS Virtual Server seems to be a good option for small businesses who want to build out an Active Directory network by using one large server to host many smaller servers that need individual Windows installs, for example: Exchange server, primary domain controller, backup domain controller, file server, etc.

Windows 2003 R2 came with a new licensing agreement which allows for four virtual macihines to run on one Windows license.....

Get up to speed.

And if your paying retail prices, you need to start working to get better deals.