Not in the F100. They're all VMs, all of the time, all on vSphere. Nutanix was the next best solution, with Hyper-V as a distant third. Hence why Broadcom ate them.

▲

ghaff 2 days ago | parent [-]

From what I hear and have seen, pre-Broadcom head-on VMware takeouts didn't go much of anywhere. But kubernetes-based (Kubevirt) products do seem to be having a degree of success.

▲

jabl 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, vsphere has a mile-long list of enterprise checkbox features that the sales managers can overwhelm the CIO's with on the golf course.

Kubernetes might have success, but AFAICS Kubernetes also sort of involves a new way of architecting applications (cloud native applications, 12-factor apps, microservices, etc.; whatever the buzzword du jour is). The idea with vmware was always to virtualize all those zillions of more or less idling physical servers, and get some snazzy management GUI to handle them all etc. etc.

	▲	ghaff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Rearchitecting for containers is indeed a lot more effort and, indeed, one of the reasons for VMware's success was that it provided more efficiency without (at least initially) much in the way of operational changes. But kuvevirt with Kubernetes does much of the same, especially for companies that are--or know they will--move to containerized workloads anyway.