Hyper-V

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.

From My Perspective as a Microsoft Azure Hybrid MVP – Two Decades in Microsoft Hybrid & HCI I write this blog as a longtime Microsoft advocate with two decades of hands-on experience—from early Hyper-V in 2008 to today’s Azure Local. This series aims to highlight the potential of Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) as a viable alternative for organizations transitioning away from VMware, especially in light of Broadcom’s acquisition. While I value Azure’s Cloud and Hybrid offerings, I believe Microsoft’s current messaging overlooks WSFC’s capabilities in providing cost-effective, high-availability solutions.