|
El_Matarife posted:I'm sorry, I should have specified the ecosystem / features of VMware are far and away better for the reasons you just listed. El_Matarife posted:I had no idea what the benchmarks were but now I'm curious. Would you say all hypervisors sit within a 10% band of each other on every metric? And how does VMware Transparent Page Sharing factor in? Last I heard, no one else had a similar feature. Kernel Samepage Merging has been in since 2010, and Xen has memory CoW. I assume Hyper-V has something similar. E: I'm not trying to be brusque with this. But you should probably review the competition a little closer.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Welp, 60 bucks later I am now a VCA-DVC. Yippy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Moey posted:Welp, 60 bucks later I am now a VCA-DVC. I think I am going to use one of my 70% off coupons for this just to see how it is. I'm expecting "what does 'VM' stand for"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:I think I am going to use one of my 70% off coupons for this just to see how it is. I'm expecting "what does 'VM' stand for" That is pretty much sums it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
I've read Scott Lowe's 5.0 book cover to cover, though it's been quite a few months and I don't do a lot of the deeper stuff day to day. How hard will the exam be for me? If it's $60 and I can just nab it I will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I've read Scott Lowe's 5.0 book cover to cover, though it's been quite a few months and I don't do a lot of the deeper stuff day to day. How hard will the exam be for me? If it's $60 and I can just nab it I will. Basically that is why I am going to take it so I can answer that as well for some of the ICM class
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
evol262 posted:None of which really matter for "needing Windows guests", to be honest. VMware's ahead because binary translation was incredible and got them ahead in the market really easy. So they're the leaders because nobody else did it and everyone built an ecosystem around VMware. It's a very Microsoft situation, honestly, and VMware's at a point now where they have to fight for their life against competitors, but they're trying to feel their way through (as the vSphere5 licensing debacle 2 years ago illustrated really clearly). They're getting better, but the gap between "what VMware offers" and "what I can get completely for free" is rapidly diminishing. Xen Cloud Platform and oVirt offer 99% of the functionality at 0% of the cost. It's a tough pill for new shops. No Hyper-V does not have equivalent to Transparent Page Sharing, Hyper-V has dynamic memory, but it doesn't share any memory between VMs. The decision was made at a high level that TPS type functionality was not needed, and has limited use scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
You guys are getting into stuff above my head, and I've mentioned this in this thread several times, but I can say as an Average System Admin ™ I've been asking myself how VMware is going to be able to command the licensing costs it does right now in the upcoming years with OpenStack gaining traction and Hyper-V getting so much better. It's a very real conversation when you're bringing up a new cluster of 6hosts/12 procs and your licensing costs for VMware is coming in at 40K + annual maint/support for Enterprise. As long as they keep with the times they're not going away, but the discussion is happening out there right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
I'm really tempted to buy the VCA Hat and travel mug, just to really show off my awesome new cert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I've read Scott Lowe's 5.0 book cover to cover, though it's been quite a few months and I don't do a lot of the deeper stuff day to day. How hard will the exam be for me? If it's $60 and I can just nab it I will. It's just about what features to what to fit into X business requirement. You will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
evol262 posted:None of which really matter for "needing Windows guests", to be honest. VMware's ahead because binary translation was incredible and got them ahead in the market really easy. So they're the leaders because nobody else did it and everyone built an ecosystem around VMware. It's a very Microsoft situation, honestly, and VMware's at a point now where they have to fight for their life against competitors, but they're trying to feel their way through (as the vSphere5 licensing debacle 2 years ago illustrated really clearly). They're getting better, but the gap between "what VMware offers" and "what I can get completely for free" is rapidly diminishing. Xen Cloud Platform and oVirt offer 99% of the functionality at 0% of the cost. It's a tough pill for new shops. Your post on open stack was really interesting but you're coming across a bit evangelical. We've just moved away from open source Xen to vmware after 5 years of production use. While in theory they both have the same functionality, the difference is in the quality of the implementation. Our experience was that xen was poorly documented, hard to manage and brittle. Although I believe they fixed it in the most recent version, requiring you to write your own network scripts to get vlan tagging to work was ridiculous. Xen is only cheaper if you have people who can spend all their time learning xen. I'd be interested to hear what you think the market for open stack actually is? If you need arbitary processing power why not just use ec2 or rack space's cloud offering. Why put another layer of abstraction beween you and what your trying to acheive? quote:We're running the same software stack with the same API, and your images can be seamlessly migrated from EC2 to Eucalyptus to RDO to Rackspace with no changes whatsoever. It's the entire point. But rackspace's vm offerings have different specs to amazon which are different to Eucalyptus, so surely you would need to make changes? It also would require you to manage everything yourself and not use any of amazon's managed services like RDS or Dynamo DB. It seems like a solution to a problem that most people who use cloud services don't actually have. Do you have an example of a company utilising open stack in this way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
I've been a Citrix sysadmin for 8+ years and have used XenServer for probably 4 of those years. It has gotten to the point where I cannot recommend XenServer as an alternative to VMware. The polish on the products is abysmal, they are still far behind on features, their documentation is garbage, and their support is garbage. XenServer 6.1 was (and is still) such a mess, that I find it hard to be excited about them open sourcing 6.2. I can't tell if that's them giving up, or recognizing that they need to change strategy. One simple example is that you cannot resize a disk on an online VM in XenServer. This limitation even carries over into AWS, where to resize a disk you literally have to offline the VM, take a snapshot of the disk, then deploy a new disk from the snapshot while selecting an increased capacity. In the year 2013. How long has VMware had the capability to do online resizing of disks? A long drat time, that's how long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
jre posted:I'd be interested to hear what you think the market for open stack actually is? If you need arbitary processing power why not just use ec2 or rack space's cloud offering. Why put another layer of abstraction beween you and what your trying to acheive?
CERN, which I believe is the largest single-tenant OpenStack deployment, is a huge use case for all of these things. Containerized compute clusters are the future of research computing. jre posted:But rackspace's vm offerings have different specs to amazon which are different to Eucalyptus, so surely you would need to make changes? It also would require you to manage everything yourself and not use any of amazon's managed services like RDS or Dynamo DB. It seems like a solution to a problem that most people who use cloud services don't actually have. Do you have an example of a company utilising open stack in this way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
DragonReach posted:The decision was made at a high level that TPS type functionality was not needed, and has limited use scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
jre posted:Your post on open stack was really interesting but you're coming across a bit evangelical. jre posted:We've just moved away from open source Xen to vmware after 5 years of production use. While in theory they both have the same functionality, the difference is in the quality of the implementation. Our experience was that xen was poorly documented, hard to manage and brittle. Although I believe they fixed it in the most recent version, requiring you to write your own network scripts to get vlan tagging to work was ridiculous. Xen is only cheaper if you have people who can spend all their time learning xen. jre posted:I'd be interested to hear what you think the market for open stack actually is? If you need arbitary processing power why not just use ec2 or rack space's cloud offering. Why put another layer of abstraction beween you and what your trying to acheive? jre posted:But rackspace's vm offerings have different specs to amazon which are different to Eucalyptus, so surely you would need to make changes? It also would require you to manage everything yourself and not use any of amazon's managed services like RDS or Dynamo DB. It seems like a solution to a problem that most people who use cloud services don't actually have. Do you have an example of a company utilising open stack in this way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
evol262 posted:The whole idea here is that there is not "another layer of abstraction" for the end-users. It's exactly the same layer of abstraction that EC2 offers. And to expand on what Mysogynist said, EC2/Rackspace Cloud is really loving expensive. If you're looking at modularizing your environment and you already have significant internal infrastructure, OpenStack can be a win. If you're going to end up deploying on EC2 or Rackspace for production but don't want to pay to run development VMs, and you want an internal environment which matches external, Openstack is aimed directly at you. Thanks, that makes more sense to me as a use case for it. evol262 posted:VMware doesn't always win these comparisons, and the ones they do are because of value-adds, not the excellence or performance of vmkernel itself. VMware is a great one-size-fits-all recommendation for virtualization, but it's not the best at everything. I feel I have a different perspective on this as an end user. I don't really care about the nitty gritty details of which hypervisor is 3% faster at 4k random io under a certain benchmark. For me its how can I use this tool to accomplish stuff the business needs. I am a sysadmin, I have a good understanding networking and how to write network scripts, the time I spent having to gently caress about getting xen to work because they didn't document how to create a virt bridge on a vlan tagged interface is a loss of productivity. The same task in vsphere is typing the vlan number into a box. I didn't even have to rtfm to work out how to do it. My problem was not that the task was complex, It was unnecessarily complex because of a lack of thought on the developers part. Vmware might not be the best at everything, but surely its best at the bit that matters which is getting out the way and letting you actually accomplish work. It also causes a problem in that you need multiple people with an in depth knowledge of this stuff otherwise you get the scenario that I'm getting calls out of hours because none of the rest of the team can trouble shoot it. (always broke when I was on holiday , I think they did it deliberately  ) Thats fine in a huge company , but in small to medium business its a real problem, and the expense of hiring extra staff with specialised knowledge totally dwarfs the licensing costs. What do you do when the guys who know how your infastructure works leave, would you not agree its harder to get people with production KVM or Xen experience than vmware?quote:Xen is poorly documented, hard to manage, and can be brittle. So is OpenStack. So is KVM. And Hyper-V. And a few obscure things in VMware. But if you have the in-house expertise, it doesn't matter, and it can be a cost savings. You lose the cost savings when your expensive admins are spending all their time trying to compensate for there being no documentation and the software being brittle instead of doing productive work. Are you not making the same argument that people make when recommending linux on the desktop ? The reason I asked in the first place is that while I recognise there is a market for this It seems to be pretty niche, and limited to people doing massive compute projects who have both the hardware and expertise in house for this to be useful. I don't see how vmware are really losing out by not being involved in it given it's unlikely to be a major revenue generator for anyone selling software.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
jre posted:I feel I have a different perspective on this as an end user. I don't really care about the nitty gritty details of which hypervisor is 3% faster at 4k random io under a certain benchmark. For me its how can I use this tool to accomplish stuff the business needs. I am a sysadmin, I have a good understanding networking and how to write network scripts, the time I spent having to gently caress about getting xen to work because they didn't document how to create a virt bridge on a vlan tagged interface is a loss of productivity. The same task in vsphere is typing the vlan number into a box. I didn't even have to rtfm to work out how to do it. My problem was not that the task was complex, It was unnecessarily complex because of a lack of thought on the developers part. Vmware might not be the best at everything, but surely its best at the bit that matters which is getting out the way and letting you actually accomplish work. jre posted:It also causes a problem in that you need multiple people with an in depth knowledge of this stuff otherwise you get the scenario that I'm getting calls out of hours because none of the rest of the team can trouble shoot it. (always broke when I was on holiday , I think they did it deliberately jre posted:You lose the cost savings when your expensive admins are spending all their time trying to compensate for there being no documentation and the software being brittle instead of doing productive work. Are you not making the same argument that people make when recommending linux on the desktop ? jre posted:The reason I asked in the first place is that while I recognise there is a market for this It seems to be pretty niche, and limited to people doing massive compute projects who have both the hardware and expertise in house for this to be useful. I don't see how vmware are really losing out by not being involved in it given it's unlikely to be a major revenue generator for anyone selling software.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you a Windows sysadmin? Creating a vlan-tagged bridge in raw KVM or Xen is exactly like doing it in RHEL. RHEV and oVirt provide wizards for this, as does hyper-v. I am an experienced VMware admin, and experienced network admin, and experienced storage admin, and an experienced Linux admin. Setting up openstack is a pain in the rear end and the documentation is in my opinion piss poor. It is very technically detailed and probably great for someone who only works with openstack or admins Linux servers all day. For someone who is accustomed to simply reading the documentation for the product I want to deploy and then following those instructions, it is not easy to setup openstack. The documentation presupposes a great deal of knowledge, and I had to do a significant amount of reading on other related projects before any of the openstack stack made sense to me. The point of jre's post is that for many shops, there is no loving way they could jump to openstack. I know my environment could not do it, because although I am sure I could set it up and migrate all of our infrastructure to it if I wanted to, none of the other admins that work on my team would be able to use any of it, and the level of Linux knowledge required makes it impossible for many of them to get up to speed on it. If openstack is really aiming for the VMware stack, including ESXi, vCenter, SRM, and the new storage features, they are going to do one of two things: 1) make it more point and click gui driven like VMware's stack is, or 2) improve the documentation to the point that it is easy to follow, even for a "windows admin". The reality is that the bulk of business's don't have dedicated Linux teams, they have a team of system administrators who have to support a fuckton of random poo poo, and they frankly don't have the time or across the board skill level to support openstack as it is today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
adorai posted:These are the same kind of disparaging comments that historically have hurt Linux adoption rates. You are effectively calling him a newb and telling him that poor documentation isn't a bad thing since his team should just know how to do it anyway. In fact, you've implied that he is also a lovely VMware admin for lacking these skills. adorai posted:The point of jre's post is that for many shops, there is no loving way they could jump to openstack. I know my environment could not do it, because although I am sure I could set it up and migrate all of our infrastructure to it if I wanted to, none of the other admins that work on my team would be able to use any of it, and the level of Linux knowledge required makes it impossible for many of them to get up to speed on it. If openstack is really aiming for the VMware stack, including ESXi, vCenter, SRM, and the new storage features, they are going to do one of two things: 1) make it more point and click gui driven like VMware's stack is, or 2) improve the documentation to the point that it is easy to follow, even for a "windows admin". The reality is that the bulk of business's don't have dedicated Linux teams, they have a team of system administrators who have to support a fuckton of random poo poo, and they frankly don't have the time or across the board skill level to support openstack as it is today. ESXi is a hypervisor. vCenter and SRM are management value-adds. Neither one of these things is part of what I would consider to be an IaaS/PaaS/private cloud platform. Without getting too much into the mechanics of OpenStack's documentation, which still isn't great, you're putting forth a huge strawman argument by claiming that the bulk of businesses don't have Linux teams. This is true, but the bulk of businesses also don't have servers at all, right? I mean, the bulk of businesses have a desktop or two in a front office, and if they're really on the ball, they might even back it up. To frame this correctly, you need to step back and look at the bulk of businesses that can benefit from a private cloud, which is a much smaller market than even the number of businesses that can benefit from virtualization (which is itself shrinking as more companies move to cloud services). If you look at the EC2 model of IaaS, the type of infrastructures that CERN has talked about in their various keynotes over the past few years, and the "cattle, not pets" mentality, it's apparent that you need an on-the-ball department and significant engineering expertise to make any kind of IaaS deployment work well. You probably are already targeting Linux as your compute platform because of the way the tooling on that platform is much better-suited for containerized computing and IaaS. To its credit, Windows is getting better support out of things like Vagrant. If you're saying "Windows teams can't run OpenStack," you're still kind of missing the point. You're giving them an incredibly powerful tool that they're probably not equipped to work with at all. I'll end this with a screencap from The Gods Must Be Crazy: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
adorai posted:These are the same kind of disparaging comments that historically have hurt Linux adoption rates. You are effectively calling him a newb and telling him that poor documentation isn't a bad thing since his team should just know how to do it anyway. In fact, you've implied that he is also a lovely VMware admin for lacking these skills. My implication in saying that good VMware admins have storage and networking skills is not that he's a poor virtualization admin for not knowing how to configure SuSE for bridged VLANs (or worse, bonded VLAN-tagged nics bridged), but that saying "I have networking and storage down pat, so it's Xen's fault that this is hard when VMware makes it easy" is fatuous in the sense that Linux is making it difficult (because NetworkManager and other graphical tools support these poorly) and vCenter is making it easy, and that "vicmd-vmknic is easy but Linux is hard" is a better comparison, because he's not running a suite designed to purely be a virtualization target without knowing how the guts work. Which XCP, RHEV, oVirt, and others explicitly are. You don't need to know how to configure bridged, VLAN-tagged NICs with these. But Xen is a kernel patchset. And KVM is a module. They're not suites/products the same way VMware is. My implication is that "VMware vs Xen" is a bad comparison unless you mean "vmkernel vs Xen" or "vSphere vs XCP". vSphere wins many of those comparisons, including usability, but... Do you get my point? adorai posted:I am an experienced VMware admin, and experienced network admin, and experienced storage admin, and an experienced Linux admin. Setting up openstack is a pain in the rear end and the documentation is in my opinion piss poor. It is very technically detailed and probably great for someone who only works with openstack or admins Linux servers all day. For someone who is accustomed to simply reading the documentation for the product I want to deploy and then following those instructions, it is not easy to setup openstack. The documentation presupposes a great deal of knowledge, and I had to do a significant amount of reading on other related projects before any of the openstack stack made sense to me. adorai posted:The point of jre's post is that for many shops, there is no loving way they could jump to openstack. I know my environment could not do it, because although I am sure I could set it up and migrate all of our infrastructure to it if I wanted to, none of the other admins that work on my team would be able to use any of it, and the level of Linux knowledge required makes it impossible for many of them to get up to speed on it. If openstack is really aiming for the VMware stack, including ESXi, vCenter, SRM, and the new storage features, they are going to do one of two things: 1) make it more point and click gui driven like VMware's stack is, or 2) improve the documentation to the point that it is easy to follow, even for a "windows admin". The reality is that the bulk of business's don't have dedicated Linux teams, they have a team of system administrators who have to support a fuckton of random poo poo, and they frankly don't have the time or across the board skill level to support openstack as it is today. OpenStack is not aiming for the VMware stack. Over and over again I repeat this. RHEV is aiming for that stack. Hyper-V is. oVirt (as upstream for RHEV) is. Virtuozzo is. XenServer is. OpenStack is designed to work with any of these, and make implementing your private cloud as hypervisor-agnostic as possible, for businesses which benefit from having a private cloud. OOB, Packstack, RDO, and others assume that you'll be using KVM. But you could just as easily configure that for ESXi. It's not a VMware replacement. It's not intended to be a VMware replacement. VMware replacements (RHEV, XCP, etc) do have "point and click GUI driven configuration". My point is that the market is not "VMware vs everything else". Again, while it's sort-of that because VMware is the 1,000 lb gorilla, it's also more nuanced in that "VMware" can mean 'ESXi', 'vCenter', 'vSphere/VIC', and who knows how many layered products on top. RHEV/Hyper-V/XenServer are analogues to 'VMware'. 'Xen', 'KVM', and (to a point, Hyper-V, in the Hyper-V Core sense) are not really analogues, but raw technologies on which you can build your own tools, which may or may not suck and may or may not be badly documented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Just as an aside vmkernel isn't actually a product you buy. You're getting ESXi of which vmkernel is a part of. It's like saying "I'm running vmlinuz" or something equivalent when you actually mean RHEL/CentOS. quote:OpenStack is not aiming for the VMware stack. I'm sure it is looking for wider adoption though. I'd like to see it become the default cloud interface if only to make my job easier. I follow what you're saying but a lot of people have a hard time separating the two since VMware/EMC both have products that attempt to compete where Openstack actually sits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
1000101 posted:Just as an aside vmkernel isn't actually a product you buy. You're getting ESXi of which vmkernel is a part of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I just want to say that I installed the cloud to butt plus extension into Chrome this weekend and it has made this thread immensely more entertaining
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
adorai posted:These are the same kind of disparaging comments that historically have hurt Linux adoption rates. You are effectively calling him a newb and telling him that poor documentation isn't a bad thing since his team should just know how to do it anyway. In fact, you've implied that he is also a lovely VMware admin for lacking these skills. ^^this The point of the vlan example was that xen 3 required you to do it in a non standard way that wasn't how you would normally do it in RHEL, and they didn't document this anywhere. After looking in the docs for the current version I see that they have since binned this method and allowed you to just create interfaces the normal way. When I was referring to network scripts, I wasn't talking about standard rhel /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts stuff, I agree if you couldn't do that then you are a lovely admin. quote:From Xen 4.1 onwards the xend toolstacks network-bridge script will only reconfigure the host network stack if the network stack does not appear to have been configured already (e.g. no bridges currently exist). This change allows administrators who wish to configure the network stack themselves to do so by default while preserving the existing behaviour for those who do not. Other network-* scripts will still unconditionally reconfigure networking when called by xend. To force xend to never try and reconfigure networking edit /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp and remove any (network-script ...) options. Also having looked at the docs for 4.1, they are now pretty good, so that negates much of my criticism of it. I was only trying to make the point that while ideally you would have lots of highly experienced admins for managing this stuff, in a lot of shops that's not the case and never will be. Anyway, before I started this horrible derail, I was trying to understand why people felt not having a fully openstack compatible vmware offering would cause them to lose market share when the market for openstack and vsphere appear to be quite different. Misogynist posted:VMware needs OpenStack to survive in the age of Amazon Web Services and Google Compute Engine
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
jre posted:The point of the vlan example was that xen 3 required you to do it in a non standard way that wasn't how you would normally do it in RHEL, and they didn't document this anywhere. After looking in the docs for the current version I see that they have since binned this method and allowed you to just create interfaces the normal way. When I was referring to network scripts, I wasn't talking about standard rhel /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts stuff, I agree if you couldn't do that then you are a lovely admin. Funnily enough, commercial products built on top of Xen largely hid this from you. Which is the argument I've repeatedly been making. Not that he's a "newb" and that poor documentation isn't a bad thing, but that productized versions (which don't generally have these problems) are directly comparable to vSphere and complaints about network config are irrelevant because productized versions won't make you do that at all. jre posted:Anyway, before I started this horrible derail, I was trying to understand why people felt not having a fully openstack compatible vmware offering would cause them to lose market share when the market for openstack and vsphere appear to be quite different. The argument usually goes like "but if you use the esx nova-compute target, you can swap it for KVM at any time!". Which you can, yeah. But there's this assumption that "the cloud" is going to take over the virtualization market wholesale. Which it almost certainly won't. The people running a nova-compute ESXi target with no other VMware products are probably going to flip to KVM. People who currently use a lot of automation to fake out a "cloud" with golden images, templates, and the like are probably going to flip to OpenStack, and maybe to KVM. The people who are running domain controllers on vCenter are firmly in VMware's pocket, and they have no incentive to move. That said, not having a "fully compatible offering" means that if OpenStack wins out as the dominant framework (it looks like it's going to), VMware is hamstringing themselves for getting on that train, because there's a big market out there for people who want cloud deployments for cattle and traditional virt for pets. But they contribute to OpenStack, and they're part of the alliance, so it's not really an issue. evol262 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Huh? The pethX/xenbrX stuff was different, but not complicated or arcane, and documentation was fine, with readily available example scripts if you couldn't or didn't want to do it yourself. Xen before 4.1 required a lot of stuff to be done oddly, yeah, but it wasn't so far out of bounds that your typical Linux admin just threw up his hands. Again, if you think that's bad, go look at OpenVSwitch and the ip-netns stuff Yes the docs exist now, they didn't when xen 3 and rhel5 came out, and I've conceded that they've now fixed a lot of the problems. quote:They are not competitors. It's just the "VMware vs the world" argument all over again. Ok thanks, thats a lot clearer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
jre posted:Yes the docs exist now, they didn't when xen 3 and rhel5 came out, and I've conceded that they've now fixed a lot of the problems. But they did. I mean, I'm sick of beating this horse, too. And the docs weren't perfect. But the initial version of the virtualization guide was released along with RHEL5.0. And that was after Xen 3.0, yeah. And the vlan-bridging scripts weren't until 2008 (or maybe a bit earlier). But these have been out for half a decade or more. And it's we're discussing circa-2008 Xen on Debian or whatever vs circa-2008 ESX 3.5, it's a nobrainer. But there's no reason to be using raw Xen or Xen 3.anything in 2013 unless you really want to or have a very good reason. evol262 fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:To be an Utter loving Pedant, ESXi isn't a product you buy anymore either. But that's missing the bigger point: the VMkernel and associated low-level management tools (i.e. not the vSphere Client) is VMware's competitor to KVM and Xen. KVM and Xen are both low-level frameworks with higher-level abstractions and products built around them. You can still get ESXi standalone (aka vsphere hypervisor) and as of last week without any goofy memory limitations anymore! I don't disagree with the rest of what was being said though. It's just that by itself 'vmkernel' is pretty useless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
1000101 posted:It's just that by itself 'vmkernel' is pretty useless. That was sort of the point, I guess. I (principally) work on RHEV-H, oVirt Node, and Nova (integration with oVirt). The vmkernel comparison was intentional because I spend my time building text user interfaces and abstractions around KVM and the network stack of Linux, in exactly the same way as vSphere hypervisor/ESXi wraps vmkernel. I know exactly how hard it is to build a sane, uniform, and comprehensive user interface to hide it. But KVM/Xen are just as useless as vmkernel in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Trying to install a Debian guest on a Windows Server 2008 host, using VirtualBox 4.2.16. I get this disgusting error:quote:This kernel requires an x86-64 CPU, but only detected an i686 CPU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
celestial teapot posted:Trying to install a Debian guest on a Windows Server 2008 host, using VirtualBox 4.2.16. I get this disgusting error: Looks like you don't have the VM set to 32bit bit OS type, switch it from linux 32bit to 64bit
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Not only did I do that stupid thing, but VT was also disabled in the BIOS. Looks like I'm off and running. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
How can I add the ability to my vSphere cluster for switch port ACL's on the networks? It looks like VShield App has been discontinued, Cisco's 1000v looks like it should do it but needs to be managed by people other than our network engineers. :edit: it looks like vSphere 5.5 adds this functionality, no idea when that is coming out though. theperminator fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
theperminator posted:How can I add the ability to my vSphere cluster for switch port ACL's on the networks? App and the rest of vCNS are the same not-quite-dead-yet grey area as vButt Director. It's still around for now, and a 5.5 release will ship, but after that, who knows. Edit: Whoops. De-Butted: https://www.vmware.com/products/vcloud-network-security.html Pantology fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Pantology posted:App and the rest of vCNS are the same not-quite-dead-yet grey area as vButt Director. It's still around for now, and a 5.5 release will ship, but after that, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:You may want to consider not previewing posts with Cloud To Butt Plus enabled. I thought he did that intentionally. If he didn't, he should've.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Pantology posted:vButt Director I am pretty sure our newest product is still under NDA, please stop posting about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Mierdaan posted:I thought he did that intentionally. If he didn't, he should've.  And agreed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I am pretty sure our newest product is still under NDA, please stop posting about it. Whoops. All the good stuff is moving to vButt Automation Center anyway, so just wait for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Let's talk about this from a business needs perspective for a minute. Assume for a minute you're not building massive scale web or similar applications on top of open source. Let's say you're at a Windows + IIS + Java + MS SQL 2008R2 shop with all kind of proprietary software in the mix. What's Open Stack going to get you in this scenario? Does OpenStack have the same catalog / policy based rapid deployment capabilities of the vCloud suite for "pets" not "cattle"? My sense of VMware's goal with vCloud is to make it easy to deploy new VMs from templates with disaster recovery, server hardening, network configuration, etc all attached and super easy. And now I understand OpenStack is all about rapidly spinning up or killing identical images in an API driven way that programmers can easily work with. Would you agree that cloud computing and virtualization are totally different models? If so, would you then agree that vCloud way more of a virtualization product and OpenStack is a cloud computing product?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:52
|
|
