Infrastructure

Welcome to Part 2 of our “Beyond the Cloud: The Case for On-Premises Virtualization” series. In our introductory post, we explored why organizations are reconsidering their virtualization strategies post-VMware acquisition. In Part 1, we conducted a detailed five-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis comparing Windows Hyper-V, Azure VMware Solution (AVS), and Azure Local, revealing how different cost structures impact long-term budgets. A key factor driving those cost differences was how each platform’s licensing model works.

Introduction In our previous blog post, we explored why organizations are reconsidering their virtualization strategy post-VMware and highlighted the often-overlooked value of Windows Server Failover Clustering with Hyper-V. Now, in this first follow-up post of the "Beyond the Cloud: The Case for On-Premises Virtualization" series, we dive into the financial side of that decision. Specifically, we will compare the five-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for three possible platforms to run a 100-Virtual Machine (VM) workload:

Why Choose Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) with Hyper‑V Over VMware Virtualization is a cornerstone of modern IT infrastructure, and VMware vSphere has long been a leader in this space. However, Microsoft’s Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) with Hyper‑V offers a compelling alternative for organizations seeking a cost-effective, high-performance virtualization platform. In this post, targeted at IT professionals, we’ll explore why WSFC with Hyper‑V is a strong alternative to VMware – emphasizing the ability to leverage existing hardware (reducing new hardware costs), the performance benefits of Hyper‑V, available management tools, feature comparisons with VMware, and a look at licensing and cost differences.