Open Source Hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Of course we have both KVM and Xen but let think about them a little more...
And BHyve
type-2?
No, type 1.
ok, type 1 for everyone but some of their presentations back in 2012 X-D! They classify KVM as type-2 too...
Whose presentations?
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Basically if you want to go with Xen world you have to go XenServer ....
Oh no, not at all. that's not even the common way.
limit this to SMB, don't think about larger groups. I know Amazon is by no means a XenServer user
SMBs recently have started toying with XS because it had a brief moment in the sun. I come from SMBs that used Xen without XS, it is the environment I've seen the most in the SMB (before Jared says anything, I'm not suggesting it is the most popular, I'm just saying I've seen it a lot.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
tht's my point in SMB, at least for the limited exposure I've seen about Xen in SMB. They go the XO + XS way, but to me this would mean just bind myself to XAPI, and I see this as a Citrix project no one else cares about. So what difference with Hyper-V?
Disclosure: I really like open source and looking at code for simplier projects really saved my day, just trying to remove some doubts of mine about KVM and Xen.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
My opinion is as far from this as possible. Open source is specifically protection against this. Nothing carries this risk more than closed source. Open source is, in fact, the sole protection against this problem. What you describe is literally the key risk of closed source software, not open source.
Yes I agree on a theoretical level, but how much of this is really applicable to Xen and KVM?
Completely and utterly. About as much as it has ever applies to any project in history. Linux itself would be protected more, but little else. These are actually the prototypical examples of how dramatically this would protect us.
-
trying to stats KVM git repo... my pc is burning...
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
tht's my point in SMB, at least for the limited exposure I've seen about Xen in SMB. They go the XO + XS way, but to me this would mean just bind myself to XAPI, and I see this as a Citrix project no one else cares about. So what difference with Hyper-V?
Just because recently a number of SMBs have decided to layer on XAPI on Xen doesn't mean the things you are extrapolating.
- Using XS doesn't bind you to XAPI, it's just an interface you can trivially move away from.
- Lots of SMBs using Xen will use cloud which means no XAPI anyway
- XAPI is not tied to Citrix, we covered that
- XAPI and XS are protected by Linux and open source, so none of these concerns exist, this protection already kicked in and is specifically why these are now of interest when they were not before when under Citrix. LIterally this discussion exists now BECAUSE we've seen open source rescue these technologies from their closed source past
- It's all different from Hyper-V because Hyper-V IS bound, IS a single vendor and IS at risk to going away.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Disclosure: I really like open source and looking at code for simplier projects really saved my day, just trying to remove some doubts of mine about KVM and Xen.
Think of it a different way... open source (good licenses like the GPL) provide clear and certain protection of an enormous degree. Nothing about a project changes that. The benefits of open source come completely on top of any benefits of the software. As long as the license is good and people use the code, open source provides big protections that never get quite as bad as the best case closed source scenario. No matter how old, abandoned or worthless a project is, code availability and licensing protection always add the tiniest additional value.
Or, another way, ANY doubt you have about KVM and Xen must exist AND be worse with Hyper-V and Vmware, it cannot be avoided.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
It's been a bit, but the big Xen distro was always Suse and getting it up and running is normally (or traditionally) nothing more than a checkbox on the install.
XS is popular because it installs as a distro, it's an "appliance" install.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Yes Canonical is way more "unstable" than IBM or Red Hat, but this is an example of how loosing the main sponsor usually means the projects start lagging and slowing down. Something which doesn't happen if the code is committed by etherogeneous subjects.
That's misleading. those projects are already slower, but that's not a benefit.
Think about two cars, one driving 140kph and one going 80kph. They both come into a town where the speed limit is 80kph. the faster car has to slow to the same speed as the slower car. That doesn't make the faster car slower or a negative, it only means that worst case, they are equal.
Having a big sponsor or set of sponsors means that the base speed isn't how fast the project can go, it can go really fast while it has the big sponsor and if it loses it, it just slows to the speed you'd normally have with normal committers.
And ANY risk of losing a sponsor like this is less than closed source losing a sponsor. Apply the same logic to Hyper-V or Vmware and suddenly they sound really, really scary. If MS find that Hyper-V is just losing it money, it can shut it down overnight without warning and make it illegal to download, install, copy, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
It's been a bit, but the big Xen distro was always Suse and getting it up and running is normally (or traditionally) nothing more than a checkbox on the install.
XS is popular because it installs as a distro, it's an "appliance" install.
It's been awhile but I remember trying Xen using Suse because of you. But my impatience got the best of me.
-
Another way to think of it... it's trivial to name massive closed source systems that have been shut down and taken away. Can you name any large open source project that went away because a sponsor dropped it? (I'm really hoping that no one can think of one, lol.) I sure can't. In the closed source world we've lost so many huge products that people loved. Windows, DOS, BeOS, Alpha processors, PA-RISC processors, OS/2, CPM, VMS (sort of), Amiga, Mac OS and more. Huge systems with millions of fans but the vendor changes their mind and they are just... gone.
That things like Hyper-V will vanish overnight while loads of users still exist is assumed that it will happen. With open source, you can safely know that it won't. One you are betting with all industry history, the other you are betting against it. Just business and market logic tells us that open source protects you from the essential certainty of this specific disaster with closed source.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
It's been a bit, but the big Xen distro was always Suse and getting it up and running is normally (or traditionally) nothing more than a checkbox on the install.
XS is popular because it installs as a distro, it's an "appliance" install.
It's been awhile but I remember trying Xen using Suse because of you. But my impatience got the best of me.
Hmmm.. any idea what issues you ran into? It's been a while since I did a new install.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
tht's my point in SMB, at least for the limited exposure I've seen about Xen in SMB. They go the XO + XS way, but to me this would mean just bind myself to XAPI, and I see this as a Citrix project no one else cares about. So what difference with Hyper-V?
Just because recently a number of SMBs have decided to layer on XAPI on Xen doesn't mean the things you are extrapolating.
- Using XS doesn't bind you to XAPI, it's just an interface you can trivially move away from.
Again: who really is able to do this in SMB?
- Lots of SMBs using Xen will use cloud which means no XAPI anyway
OK, this is a point. I've neglected a thing: I'm thinking about on premise installations. Use the cloud actually means they are relaying on non SMBs to manage Xen.
- XAPI is not tied to Citrix, we covered that
Well... but git commits' stats say the opposite
1733 David Scott 21.6% 1083 John Else 13.5% 1031 Rob Hoes 12.8% 563 Jon Ludlam 7.0% 335 Si Beaumont 4.2%all of those are citrix except David Scott, who was citrix when he developed the thing. But his last commit is from 2015, (when he leaved citrix?)
- XAPI and XS are protected by Linux and open source, so none of these concerns exist, this protection already kicked in and is specifically why these are now of interest when they were not before when under Citrix. LIterally this discussion exists now BECAUSE we've seen open source rescue these technologies from their closed source past
- It's all different from Hyper-V because Hyper-V IS bound, IS a single vendor and IS at risk to going away.
To me this can apply to Xen as it core, as you say, to KVM? (still crunching the repo). But when a SMB wants to deploy its on premise HV, the core itself is useful as much as the ecosystem around it. namely the basic one: HV management tools.
Xen as it core without XAPI is never seen in any SMB discussion I've looked at in recent years... so my question. Do really SMB pick Xen for its theoretical freedoms or just because its free of charge? Do they mind about the fact those tools can survive the main sponsor? How can I really "sell" them from a technical stand point?
My honest reaction in front of Xen as seen in SMB deployments is: ok you are now bound to citrix keeping xapi healty, as you could be bound to MS keeping Hyper-V healty.
I do not feel the same with distros: while a main sponsor is there, their contributing base is much wider.
When my pc will finish crunching KVM I will comment on it. Being a number of companies contributing to it (and to libvirt for those who do not go the vendor way - think about scale) seems enough value.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
It's been a bit, but the big Xen distro was always Suse and getting it up and running is normally (or traditionally) nothing more than a checkbox on the install.
XS is popular because it installs as a distro, it's an "appliance" install.
It's been awhile but I remember trying Xen using Suse because of you. But my impatience got the best of me.
Hmmm.. any idea what issues you ran into? It's been a while since I did a new install.
I was more of an Ubuntu/unity user and jumping in head first trying to use Suse just didn't feel right with me.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
tht's my point in SMB, at least for the limited exposure I've seen about Xen in SMB. They go the XO + XS way, but to me this would mean just bind myself to XAPI, and I see this as a Citrix project no one else cares about. So what difference with Hyper-V?
Just because recently a number of SMBs have decided to layer on XAPI on Xen doesn't mean the things you are extrapolating.
- Using XS doesn't bind you to XAPI, it's just an interface you can trivially move away from.
Again: who really is able to do this in SMB?
I'm confused. Like... anyone. I'm not sure where you perceive any lock in, so it is hard to explain why there is none.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
Because it was less of pain to get setup compare to my experience with Xen.
It's been a bit, but the big Xen distro was always Suse and getting it up and running is normally (or traditionally) nothing more than a checkbox on the install.
XS is popular because it installs as a distro, it's an "appliance" install.
It's been awhile but I remember trying Xen using Suse because of you. But my impatience got the best of me.
Hmmm.. any idea what issues you ran into? It's been a while since I did a new install.
I was more of an Ubuntu/unity user and jumping in head first trying to use Suse just didn't feel right with me.
Oh okay, that might do it.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
tht's my point in SMB, at least for the limited exposure I've seen about Xen in SMB. They go the XO + XS way, but to me this would mean just bind myself to XAPI, and I see this as a Citrix project no one else cares about. So what difference with Hyper-V?
Just because recently a number of SMBs have decided to layer on XAPI on Xen doesn't mean the things you are extrapolating.
- Using XS doesn't bind you to XAPI, it's just an interface you can trivially move away from.
Again: who really is able to do this in SMB?
- Lots of SMBs using Xen will use cloud which means no XAPI anyway
OK, this is a point. I've neglected a thing: I'm thinking about on premise installations. Use the cloud actually means they are relaying on non SMBs to manage Xen.
- XAPI is not tied to Citrix, we covered that
Well... but git commits' stats say the opposite
1733 David Scott 21.6% 1083 John Else 13.5% 1031 Rob Hoes 12.8% 563 Jon Ludlam 7.0% 335 Si Beaumont 4.2%all of those are citrix except David Scott, who was citrix when he developed the thing. But his last commit is from 2015, (when he leaved citrix?)
Except GIT commits only give a partial picture. That doesn't tell us what you think that it tells us.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Xen as it core without XAPI is never seen in any SMB discussion I've looked at in recent years... so my question. Do really SMB pick Xen for its theoretical freedoms or just because its free of charge?
SMBs don't do things for good reason. We determined at one point that the average Hyper-V deployment in the SMB was literally by accident or confusion. SMBs are protected by Xen and KVM regardless of if the SMB knows it.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
My honest reaction in front of Xen as seen in SMB deployments is: ok you are now bound to citrix keeping xapi healty, as you could be bound to MS keeping Hyper-V healty.
But you simply are not. Nothing binds you to it. I don't know what creates this perception, but Xen is totally viable without XS or XAPI. Just because recently people are talking about XO a lot so XAPI gets brought up doesn't tell us that Xen is only viable with it or that you are bound to it or anything like that.
