What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options
-
HostFav does LXC for their cloud, with a KVM option. They still want to support Windows, but were willing to give in on the "single platform" option.
-
@scottalanmiller well, in any case - that's where you get KVM from most providers. You want docker - you either deploy your own on cloud VMs or use GKE or whatever. I've never even seen LXC as an option
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller well, in any case - that's where you get KVM from most providers. You want docker - you either deploy your own on cloud VMs or use GKE or whatever. I've never even seen LXC as an option
Right, but of course you don't. I keep explaining why you don't and won't see it. But you keep responding with the result being exactly what I said.
-
And why do many of us choose Vultr? Because it provides a Windows option is a major reason. Sure the price is great and the reliability is great, but not having to have a different provider for different things is a major driver too. Even if we only have one Windows workload out of however many other things, it only takes one.
-
@scottalanmiller never even heard of HostFav, there are tons of small time providers out there, can't really cover them all.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller never even heard of HostFav, there are tons of small time providers out there, can't really cover them all.
Right, but the BIG providers all support Windows. It's needed to be a big player.
-
@scottalanmiller I don't use Vultr, so speak for yourself:) I also don't use Windows. But I use a lot of Linux on AWS and GCP as well as some openstack platforms. for me what is important isn't the ability to run Windows but the ability to run a proper OS and not a container, plus the more interesting instance types, like the i3.metal.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I don't use Vultr, so speak for yourself:) I also don't use Windows. But I use a lot of Linux on AWS and GCP as well as some openstack platforms. for me what is important isn't the ability to run Windows but the ability to run a proper OS and not a container, plus the more interesting instance types, like the i3.metal.
But big players require the ability to run Windows. You want big player features. You are just explaining back why it is a taint that affects you even when you don't recognize it. Only small players are LXC or OpenVZ only... since they can't service the vast majority of customers, even customers that are almost entirely Linux.
-
@scottalanmiller the really big providers also don't care about the cost of adding a feature like I mentioned earlier (if linux deploy on container, else deploy on VM), but they still default to VMs, despite the potential of such a feature to save them money due to better density and resource utilization
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller the really big providers also don't care about the cost of adding a feature like I mentioned earlier (if linux deploy on container, else deploy on VM), but they still default to VMs, despite the potential of such a feature to save them money due to better density and resource utilization
If they don't care to do so, why do you feel that that is given that you feel it would make them money? That sounds like they simply don't want to make money.
-
@scottalanmiller my take is that they don't really see it as a huge advantage. And they recognize customers like me, who need to run a proper OS and not a container. They also don't really care about what OS that will be.
To put it in agile task terms: as a user, I want to be able to run an OS and perform actions the same way as if I'd be doing that on real hardware. As a developer, want to develop a product that works on my test machines, and then deploy on AWS or GCP without surprises. As a developer I want to develop in the cloud, and know that my code will work on my clients' machines properly.
So this is not really about windows, this is about providing a proper guest and not a husk like a docker runtime.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller my take is that they don't really see it as a huge advantage.
Which part, the making more money part?
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller my take is that they don't really see it as a huge advantage. And they recognize customers like me, who need to run a proper OS and not a container.
What issue are you seeing with full container virtualization for your workloads? You are modifying the kernels?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Which part, the making more money part?
The part where you create containers and VMs from the same interface
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
What issue are you seeing with full container virtualization for your workloads? You are modifying the kernels?
I need to have a proper, accessible and full /proc for one
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Which part, the making more money part?
The part where you create containers and VMs from the same interface
That seems like a pretty minor effort for someone like Amazon.
However, with Firecracker, that's kind of what they are doing anyway.
-
/proc doesn't differ too much with LXC.
[root@acl-jira ~]# ls /proc 1 24924 24951 25368 275 322 bus diskstats interrupts key-users locks net slabinfo thread-self zoneinfo 12471 24925 24952 25369 295 323 cgroups dma iomem kmsg mdstat pagetypeinfo softirqs timer_list 12581 24926 24953 25370 316 54 cmdline driver ioports kpagecgroup meminfo partitions stat tty 24897 24937 24955 25381 318 56 consoles execdomains irq kpagecount misc sched_debug swaps uptime 24908 24938 25157 25382 319 69 cpuinfo fb kallsyms kpageflags modules schedstat sys version 24909 24939 25258 25383 32 acpi crypto filesystems kcore latency_stats mounts scsi sysrq-trigger vmallocinfo 24910 24950 25286 25386 320 buddyinfo devices fs keys loadavg mtrr self sysvipc vmstat [scott@lax-lnx-jump proc]$ ls /proc 1 112 2 24453 24612 31 38 427 532 644 674 759 acpi diskstats ioports kpageflags mtrr softirqs uptime 10 12 20 24455 24613 32 39 428 557 645 676 8 buddyinfo dma irq latency_stats net stat version 100 13 21 24460 24621 326 393 429 598 646 677 9 bus driver kallsyms loadavg pagetypeinfo swaps vmallocinfo 101 13532 21810 24461 2599 33 4 43 599 647 681 9133 cgroups execdomains kcore locks partitions sys vmstat 102 14 22 24510 27 332 403 430 6 648 682 9214 cmdline fb keys mdstat sched_debug sysrq-trigger zoneinfo 103 15 23 24512 28 34 421 431 612 654 683 968 consoles filesystems key-users meminfo schedstat sysvipc 105 16 23974 24520 29 35 424 432 613 659 684 969 cpuinfo fs kmsg misc scsi thread-self 106 17 24 24562 3 36 425 44 615 662 694 98 crypto interrupts kpagecgroup modules self timer_list 11 18 24449 24568 30 37 426 517 643 664 752 99 devices iomem kpagecount mounts slabinfo ttyContainer on top. KVM on bottom.
