Microsoft marketing has recently released a Competitive Advantages document which focuses against VMware. Microsoft promises to have the hypervisor which exceeds VMware capabilities. But is Microsoft really in front of VMware now? I think that it is not convincing to compare a product that is not released yet with one that has been on the market for one year now. Who knows what VMware will release in the future, maybe even before the final release of Windows Server 2012. Nevertheless, let's have a closer look at the document.
There is no doubt that Microsoft has done a great job. They have a distributed switch called extensible switch and they have migration features which allows to migrate machines without shared storage. But are there any features VMware does not provide? I could not find anything. In my opinion, Microsoft has caught up, but they are not ahead.
Trunk Mode to Virtual Machines
With Hyper-V traffic can be directed to a virtual machine. Microsoft alleges that VMware does not provide such features. But this is wrong. Using VMware you can create trunk port groups and add VLAN tags inside your virtual machines:
320 vs. 160 logical processors
Hyper-V supports twice as many logical processors as the recent version of ESXi. Sounds great from a marketing perspective, but how about the real world? Is there any server vendor which provides such a big server? HPs largest server, the ProLiant DL980 G7 for example supports 8 processors with up to 10 cores. The IBM x3950 X5 has the same limit. This is even the half of VMware configuration maximum. So the answer is, yes - Hyper-V does scale higher then ESXi. But will you encounter this limit in the real world? Not at the moment.
Hyper-V allows clusters with up to 64 hosts. VMware limits to 32 hosts. But does this really limit the design? In fact, there is no disadvantage if you just create two 32 host clusters with VMware.