A few years ago, it looked as though VMWare's had ceded the market for Mac virtualisation software to its arch-rival,. The company stopped trying to match Parallels' regular schedule of updates, and instead focused on its corporate products and services, such as VMware Workstation and vSphere. But, at the recent VMworld conference, once more emphasized his strategy of 'any device, any application, any cloud', and it would appear that 'any device' still includes the Mac, as the company has just given Fusion its most significant update in recent years. Pricing & options Unlike Parallels Desktop, which has long-since adopted a 'software as service' model, and requires an annual subscription of £58.32 (ex. VAT; £69.99 inc. VAT, or $79.99), Fusion can still be bought for a one-time price of £59.13 (ex.
VAT; £70.96 inc. VAT, or $79.99). Existing users - going back to Fusion 8 - can upgrade to version 11 for £36.63 (ex.
VAT; £43.96 inc. VAT, or $49.99). There's also a second version of the program available, called Fusion Pro, that provides additional features for corporate users, which costs £117.46 (ex. VAT; £140.95 inc. VAT, or $159.99). Features Many of the new features in Fusion 11 are simply intended to bring it into line with recent developments on both Mac and Windows platforms, including compatibility with the new as well as the latest and models.
You can now create virtual machines (VMs) on your Mac that run the latest 2018 updates for Windows 10 and Windows Server, along with additional operating systems such as Ubuntu 18.04.1, Fedora 28 and Debian 9.5. Recent Mac models that support Apple's graphics API can also run Windows virtual machines with Direct X 10.1 in order to improve graphics quality. Fusion 11's new Applications Menu sits at the top of the screen for easy access. Image: Cliff Joseph/ZDNet Fusion doesn't have the slick graphical interface of Parallels Desktop, but version 11 includes a redesigned Applications Menu, which sits in the Mac's main Menu Bar at the top of the screen for easy access.
If you use multiple virtual machines on your Mac, the new menu allows you to quickly browse and select your VMs, and also to control individual VMs even when they're not running. The menu can be used to start, shut down or pause a VM, or to switch viewing modes on the Mac desktop. Top ZDNET Reviews. 8.0 SEE: You can also view a list of all apps that are installed on a VM, and select an app - such as the Edge browser - in order to launch the VM with that app already running. And, like Parallels Desktop, Fusion 11 can assign Windows application commands and menu options to the Touch Bar on the latest MacBook Pro laptops.
Fusion 11 running multiple VMs. Image: VMware Conclusions Even if Fusion isn't as slick as its arch-rival, its greatest appeal for enterprise users may lie in its compatibility with VMware's wider technology portfolio. Fusion 11 can run and share VMs created with other VMware products, such as Workstation Pro for Windows, and supports the latest version of VMware's REST API for developers. Fusion Pro also provides the ability to connect to vSphere and Workstation servers, as well as more secure encryption when sharing VMs across an organisation. So, while it might not be quite as easy on the eye as Parallels Desktop, Fusion's more flexible pricing and its integration with other VMware products and services may well appeal to many business users. RECENT AND RELATED CONTENT As Apple's next OS version nears full release, the leading virtualisation tool for Mac users undergoes its annual upgrade. As his company celebrates turning 20, the CEO told ZDNet that VMware is 'just getting started' on its role in the enterprise, and that it will remain very much its own company under the Dell Technologies brand.
The company reported Q2 revenue of $2.17 billion, up 13 percent year over year. Microsoft's new Windows Virtual Desktop service will allow enterprise subscription customers to run Windows, Office and third-party apps in Azure virtual machines. (TechRepublic)Match Group's Henry Lin describes the different VMware products that the company is experimenting with across its stack.
Read more reviews. Related Topics: Top ZDNET Reviews. By registering you become a member of the CBS Interactive family of sites and you have read and agree to the,. You agree to receive updates, alerts and promotions from CBS and that CBS may share information about you with our marketing partners so that they may contact you by email or otherwise about their products or services.
You will also receive a complimentary subscription to the ZDNet's Tech Update Today and ZDNet Announcement newsletters. You may unsubscribe from these newsletters at any time. ACCEPT & CLOSE.
Hi all, I'm in total confusion of what's the best solution for my budget. I'm going to spend around 50k€ for a HA infrastructure and I'm interested in a SDS because I feel it more cheap and customizable and I can build a real storage cluster (with mirroring) trasparent to the host (for cheap). In my 50k I must also insert 2 new host, 2 windows datacenter license, possibly vmware essential plus license and yes, also a SDS:) So, after a few market search I was considering the 3 SDS in the subject, installed on 2 server that will be at the same time Storage and Host.
The only solution that will have 3 server configuration will be VSan, but in this case I will have less SSD, less SAS and smaller servers. Hardware apart, what will be the best solution for 6K iop/s (my actual needings)? From my findings I have this ideas: Datacore: the most perfromer of the group (ram cache, sequential storage.) but it works better on Windows HyperV, where it will be installed directly in the host for better performance. I sill prefer vmWare as hypervisor, but could consider also Hyper-V. It will be installed on 2 Dell R730x server with 4ssd and 6 sas each. 10gbit direct attach HP VSA: the cheapest! Is will be installed on HP server (DL380g9 4ssd 6 sas each) with HP 2960 10gbit switch on vmWare.
I'm not very confident that it could deliver very good performance (no cache, only dual core support, one more virtualization layer). The plus is that I will have all HP, so only one vendor in case of problems vmWare vSan: best in class if I go with vmware hypervisor, but have high license cost (i have only 2TB of data to protect) and need 3 server, so I must forget about the windows datacenter and go with standard, I must use only 1 ssd for server (and not 4 like other solutions) and 4 SAS drives.
Ah, only 1gbit lan in my budget Nexenta: doesn't like it that much, but probably because of the reseller I have found, plus in Italy there are only 2 resellers (so less support) Many thanks! DalBiancoM wrote: I'm going to spend around 50k€ for a HA infrastructure and I'm interested in a SDS because I feel it more cheap and customizable and I can build a real storage cluster (with mirroring) trasparent to the host (for cheap).
First question, and this is the big one. Do you need HA? Very, very few people do. Everyone thinks that they do, but almost no one does. Have you done analysis to see if it is really needed? You are looking at some good options for it if you really do, but be sure to step back and consider if you really are the 1% (or less) of companies needing HA. StorMagic, and Starwind both work with 2 node solutions with 10Gbps cross connects.
Nexenta Community Edition Vmware Download For Mac Free
Both can do VSA's, but Starwind offers some more scale out options, richer services, and a native Hyper-V option too. StorMagic is more of a Robo play than your primary DC. Clustered Nexenta is kind of an odd duck and not something I'd recommend if your budget conscious and want to do it right. Avoid Datacore at all costs.
The amount of corruption, data loss, outages, and terrible support I've experienced should exist as a large enough anecdote to become a data point on a graph somewhere. This is the only product that I've been asked to physically risk my life to support (thankfully I refused, and didn't get caught in the explosion).
Edit, low coffee. For some reason I wrote avoid starwind instead of datacore, and said StorSimpl instead of Stormagic In summery. Starwind = Good. DataCore = Bad (now going for coffee). Edited Mar 30, 2015 at 17:37 UTC. DalBiancoM wrote: In my 50k I must also insert 2 new host, 2 windows datacenter license, possibly vmware essential plus license and yes, also a SDS:) That's a tiny budget to pull of HA with none of that being external.
VMware Essentials Plus is necessary for HA, so that isn't a 'Maybe' it's a downright starting point. It's the one thing that can't be avoided for virtualization layer HA. And it is a massive chunk of your budget. If $50K needs to include all of that, I think you can rule out HA right now and move on.
Two hosts, that's $20K right there at a minimum. Windows licensing is at least $12K on top of that. VMware Essentials Plus is another $4500. That's about $40K right there.
And those are minimums. DalBiancoM: In looking at your options for deployment have you considered taking a hyperconverged approach?
If you're trying to meet your estimated IOPS need, and provide fault tolerance/HA, and keep costs in check, Scale Computing's HC3 is the perfect approach. Our HC3 clusters are simple, scalable, and fault tolerant without any additional hypervisor licensing costs.
Our clusters provide storage, and virtualization (compute/memory) resources with built-in redundancy and fault tolerance with an incredibly intuitive UI that focused on simplicity of management. You manage your VM workloads only, not underlying storage or compute resources. Of course, you would still need the datacenter licensing, but we could look in depth at your specific IOPS needs and get a solution that would, including the 2012DC licenses, be under the 50k requirement. Take a look at the management interface: If you're interested, we could set up a demo or you could join on our weekly demo. Feel free to take a look at our website for pricing (clusters start at 25k USD), or DM me and I can get the ball rolling. Check out our reviews as well from other SpiceHeads! Best Regards, Mike.
Unfortunately my factory works H24, so during night it's necessary to have HA. I have 2 really importat database, one with oracle (ERP) and one with SQL Server (automatized storage). The first one just need HA, because I have only the Standard Edition One of oracle so no clustering in license. The second one need the database mirroring (not yet implemented) because I couldn't lost any single transaction, and this is another voice in the year budget. As for StarWind I don't feel so confident about the reliability. Also some customers offer me Open-E and I don't feel it also very reliable, too much people with problem in the net. Maxta here in Italy doesn't have a real reseller, so this mean no support at all and StorMagic isn't any better.
For the cost of vmWare I'm also thinking about Hyper-V, but from my testbed it isn't at all near the free edition of vmWare 5 (I'm testing 2012 R2), so I'm not really confident that Hyper-V will be a good choice. It also seems to have small hiccups with Arcserve UDP (my backup software) No one speaks about HP Vsa. It is cheap (2 x 8TB for each host cost about 6,5K) but probably his pros ends here.
Scott Alan Miller wrote: That's a tiny budget to pull of HA with none of that being external. VMware Essentials Plus is necessary for HA, so that isn't a 'Maybe' it's a downright starting point.
It's the one thing that can't be avoided for virtualization layer HA. And it is a massive chunk of your budget. If $50K needs to include all of that, I think you can rule out HA right now and move on. Two hosts, that's $20K right there at a minimum.
Windows licensing is at least $12K on top of that. VMware Essentials Plus is another $4500. That's about $40K right there.
And those are minimums. Thank for the post. These are my calcs about my budget; - Vmware Essential plus 4k - Windows 2012 Datacenter ROK/OEM = 2x4k = 8K (no manteinance) - Windows 2012 CAL needed = 3K So there are 35K€ residual. A host costs about 5K without disks (my configuration type will be a Dell R430 with 1 E5-2660 V3, 128GB ram and 2x10Gbit lan) So I have about 25K€ for disks (need SSD and SAS 10K mix), SDS and eventually LAN (HP needs 10Gbit switch, vSan also but it's out of budget with vSan, Datacore/StarWind use direct attach). Mike (Scale Computing) wrote. Best Regards, Mike Hi Mike, I have seen just a week ago your system and it's a great system, but I feel it too much small for my needs.
I haven't sayd yet that I have only few virtual machines (about 10-12) and only 3 of them (4 in future) need computational power, but one of this now it's running on a E5-2690 with 64GB Ram and ALL-SSD system (is the cause of 6k iop/s) and feel underpower (the Oracle Database, few threads, a lot of heavy query). So for all my customer I say that I need at least a E5-2660V3 cpu (only one because for now it will be enough) and H3C systems is perfect for high number of VM but not for computational power/ high iops systems if I'm right.
HP VSA is low cost and whilst it's arguably a bit basic on features vs. Some newer products, is it proven and reliable - we ran the physical product for 4 years and if you have it setup right the resiliency is pretty staggering. With the right disks underneath it 6,000 IOPS won't shouldn't be an issue though of course it depends on the workload and if it's sustained etc. Small point but check your Oracle licensing too - we don't use Oracle but I only ever remember hearing bad things about some of their licensing practices in a virtual environment. Hutchingsp wrote: HP VSA is low cost and whilst it's arguably a bit basic on features vs. Some newer products, is it proven and reliable - we ran the physical product for 4 years and if you have it setup right the resiliency is pretty staggering. With the right disks underneath it 6,000 IOPS won't shouldn't be an issue though of course it depends on the workload and if it's sustained etc.
Small point but check your Oracle licensing too - we don't use Oracle but I only ever remember hearing bad things about some of their licensing practices in a virtual environment. Yes Oracle is a bad dog. In any case we have 2 socket license, so with 2 hosts with only 1 socket per host (one E5-2660 V3 is my choice) I will not have any problem. For VSA my configuration will be based on DL380g9 24 slot (1x E5-2660V3, 128GB ram, 2gb cache controller) with 4 SSD 240GB (must choose between RAID5 or 10) and 6 900GB SAS in RAID 10. The oracle machine will be all on SSD without auto-tearing (around 300GB). The remaining SSD space, if possible, will be used as auto-tearing (don't know if I can partition disk space with VSA for different uses like 50% SSD dedicated and 50% auto-tearing, datacore for example doens't let you partition) This will be connected with 2x hp 2690 switches with 4x10GBit port.
I'm not sure that this will let me hit 6K Iops. DalBiancoM wrote: Unfortunately my factory works H24, so during night it's necessary to have HA. Statements like this suggest you do NOT need HA. Those who need HA always talk in terms of lost revenue per minute/hour etc. They never, ever talk about running 24x7.
This is why I ask the question, because the knee jerk reaction is to feel that your business is special and that normal rules of business don't apply - but every SMB feels this way and the reality is, 99% of them aren't special. That you run 24x7 doesn't make HA any more necessary for you than for someone that runs 8x5. Not in the least. It actually makes you slightly less in need of HA. But mostly it is break even. HA is 100% about losses per minute and nothing else. If you don't know those numbers, almost certainly HA shouldn't be on your radar.
DalBiancoM wrote: A host costs about 5K without disks (my configuration type will be a Dell R430 with 1 E5-2660 V3, 128GB ram and 2x10Gbit lan)Only a single CPU per host? That might make sense, but it is unusual. Some things, like Windows Datacenter licensing, has to be in pairs so there is no cost savings for that particular license in going with a single CPU. It was going to dual CPU systems that made Scale really make sense for me a lot of the time.
Before that they really were only perfect for non-Windows workloads. But since going to dual CPU they fit a lot of needs.
Maybe not yours, although I'd be interested to see how their dual CPU systems stacks up against your single CPU 'custom' config for your one really intensive workload. Might be worth a trial or something to see. If Scale met your needs it would solve a lot of complexity. I really like their solution approach in general. Scott Alan Miller wrote: Only a single CPU per host? That might make sense, but it is unusual.
Some things, like Windows Datacenter licensing, has to be in pairs so there is no cost savings for that particular license in going with a single CPU. Yes, to lower costs I think it's better to start with only an high frequency cpu, and in future have the option to put another one inside. (for 12 VM 2 hosts with E5-2660V3 will be a good configuration) In this configuration I can grow by cpu, ram or disks in base of my needs, without buy other hardware in future, other switches and other software licenses (and this is a great costs saving). Just put some new components inside my reliable and stable configuration. Scale in their higher configuration use low end cpu, with few threads, and not so I/O prone disks. This make me feel that their systems are more suitable for high number of VM, like virtualized workstation, that in USA is a pretty normal configuration, but in Italy it's not.
We are still in love with phisical workstation. We like the iron:). DalBiancoM wrote: So I have about 25K€ for disks (need SSD and SAS 10K mix), SDS and eventually LAN (HP needs 10Gbit switch, vSan also but it's out of budget with vSan, Datacore/StarWind use direct attach)10GigE switches aren't too bad these days as long as you don't need tons of ports. I think Netgear has an affordable eight port unit that might meet your needs. Starwind should be free at this size. No reason not to try it out to see if it meets your needs before looking at something more complex and/or expensive. Scott Alan Miller wrote: Statements like this suggest you do NOT need HA.
Those who need HA always talk in terms of lost revenue per minute/hour etc. They never, ever talk about running 24x7. This is why I ask the question, because the knee jerk reaction is to feel that your business is special and that normal rules of business don't apply - but every SMB feels this way and the reality is, 99% of them aren't special. That you run 24x7 doesn't make HA any more necessary for you than for someone that runs 8x5. Not in the least. It actually makes you slightly less in need of HA. But mostly it is break even.
HA is 100% about losses per minute and nothing else. If you don't know those numbers, almost certainly HA shouldn't be on your radar.
The problem is that during night if I loose the connection with my oracle all my production can't work efficently and also a few parts of it will immediately stops. So, I don't have a 'losses for minute' evaluation, but with 50k€ of budget the HA just take only 4K€ (in case of vmWare, for free if I go with Hyper-V), so for this small price I think it's better to take it.
Anyway my priority isn't HA, I could live without or consider to insert in my next year budget. My priority is the safety of the data inside my VM. So, for SQL there is nothing better than mirroring, and this costs very few money, but for Oracle I need a solid storage with both vertial and horizontal growing ability (with an eye for the future), so I think that SDS will be the best choice for my budget. By your thought, am I going in the right direction? Scott Alan Miller wrote:Starwind should be free at this size. No reason not to try it out to see if it meets your needs before looking at something more complex and/or expensive. My only doubt about StarWind is the reliability.