ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Testing oVirt...

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    ovirtsupermicrored hat virtualizationkvmglusterhyperconvergedcentos7
    339 Posts 21 Posters 61.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DustinB3403D
      DustinB3403 @FATeknollogee
      last edited by

      @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

      @DustinB3403 said in Testing oVirt...:

      @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

      @DustinB3403 said in Testing oVirt...:

      @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

      For folks that might be interested in kicking the tires, here's a nice summary:
      https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-virtualization-43-quick-start

      How long until these are pushed down stream?

      RHV-H/RHV-M are the downstream.

      Oh

      @DustinB3403 Curious, are you an RHV user (aka subscriber)?

      I'm not.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • FATeknollogeeF
        FATeknollogee
        last edited by

        @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
          last edited by

          @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

          @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

          We decided not to use oVirt. But if we were, none of those would make sense. We are using virt-manager and local storage basically everywhere.

          FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • FATeknollogeeF
            FATeknollogee @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

            @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

            @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

            We decided not to use oVirt. But if we were, none of those would make sense. We are using virt-manager and local storage basically everywhere.

            Can you say why you decided not to use?

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
              last edited by

              @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

              @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

              @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

              @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

              We decided not to use oVirt. But if we were, none of those would make sense. We are using virt-manager and local storage basically everywhere.

              Can you say why you decided not to use?

              Yeah, way too much overhead and complexity. It make simple tasks hard and it is totally focused on clustering which rarely has any place in the SMB. Deploying it was a huge headache. Had some neat features, but none that we cared about. We ran into some issues with it that were enough that we questioned the logic of trying to use it.

              Tested virt-manager instead and it was flexible, simple, and worked perfectly, instantly. The real thing was that in the end oVirt just offered nothing of particular value, but had a lot of negatives.

              ObsolesceO FATeknollogeeF 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ObsolesceO
                Obsolesce @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

                We decided not to use oVirt. But if we were, none of those would make sense. We are using virt-manager and local storage basically everywhere.

                Can you say why you decided not to use?

                Yeah, way too much overhead and complexity. It make simple tasks hard and it is totally focused on clustering which rarely has any place in the SMB. Deploying it was a huge headache. Had some neat features, but none that we cared about. We ran into some issues with it that were enough that we questioned the logic of trying to use it.

                Tested virt-manager instead and it was flexible, simple, and worked perfectly, instantly. The real thing was that in the end oVirt just offered nothing of particular value, but had a lot of negatives.

                What was the purpose of looking into it in the first place? What were the goals? What was the problem you were trying to solve?

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @Obsolesce
                  last edited by

                  @Obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                  @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                  @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                  @scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?

                  We decided not to use oVirt. But if we were, none of those would make sense. We are using virt-manager and local storage basically everywhere.

                  Can you say why you decided not to use?

                  Yeah, way too much overhead and complexity. It make simple tasks hard and it is totally focused on clustering which rarely has any place in the SMB. Deploying it was a huge headache. Had some neat features, but none that we cared about. We ran into some issues with it that were enough that we questioned the logic of trying to use it.

                  Tested virt-manager instead and it was flexible, simple, and worked perfectly, instantly. The real thing was that in the end oVirt just offered nothing of particular value, but had a lot of negatives.

                  What was the purpose of looking into it in the first place? What were the goals? What was the problem you were trying to solve?

                  Remote management of multiple KVM sites.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • FATeknollogeeF
                    FATeknollogee @scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                    Yeah, way too much overhead and complexity. It make simple tasks hard and it is totally focused on clustering which rarely has any place in the SMB. Deploying it was a huge headache. Had some neat features, but none that we cared about. We ran into some issues with it that were enough that we questioned the logic of trying to use it.

                    Tested virt-manager instead and it was flexible, simple, and worked perfectly, instantly. The real thing was that in the end oVirt just offered nothing of particular value, but had a lot of negatives.

                    I disagree about oVirt having lots of negatives.
                    You guys were attempting to use the wrong tool for the job.

                    @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                    Remote management of multiple KVM sites.

                    Perfect job for virt-manager :thumbs_up:

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
                      last edited by

                      @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                      Yeah, way too much overhead and complexity. It make simple tasks hard and it is totally focused on clustering which rarely has any place in the SMB. Deploying it was a huge headache. Had some neat features, but none that we cared about. We ran into some issues with it that were enough that we questioned the logic of trying to use it.

                      Tested virt-manager instead and it was flexible, simple, and worked perfectly, instantly. The real thing was that in the end oVirt just offered nothing of particular value, but had a lot of negatives.

                      I disagree about oVirt having lots of negatives.
                      You guys were attempting to use the wrong tool for the job.

                      @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                      Remote management of multiple KVM sites.

                      Perfect job for virt-manager :thumbs_up:

                      Its the wrong tool for the job because of its negatives 😉

                      Had it not had those negatives it would have been the better tool.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        The idea behind oVirt is superior. Central web based management would be great. oVirt simply was too complex and inflexible making it worth abandoning a superior approach because it just wasnt that good at what it should be best at.

                        oVirt isnt bad, but it absolutely has huge negatives that are glaring and unnecessary.

                        ObsolesceO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • FATeknollogeeF
                          FATeknollogee
                          last edited by

                          oVirt is the RH equivalent of vSphere.

                          oVirt was not made to manage standalone instances of virt-manager.

                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
                            last edited by

                            @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                            oVirt is the RH equivalent of vSphere.

                            oVirt was not made to manage standalone instances of virt-manager.

                            Thats a massive weakness and goes totally against their stated purpose of being a central management infrastrutcture for the enterprise. Thats also totally different than vSphere.

                            oVirt is supposed to be exactly what you say it is not for.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller
                              last edited by

                              What good is oVirt to an enterprise if it is for isolated low performance HA instances only? That makes no sense.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • FATeknollogeeF
                                FATeknollogee
                                last edited by

                                You do realize some type of "shared" storage is necessary unless you opt for the single node install option (which it sounds like you guys didn't choose)?

                                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
                                  last edited by

                                  @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

                                  You do realize some type of "shared" storage is necessary unless you opt for the single node install option (which it sounds like you guys didn't choose)?

                                  We wanted single node but in testing found it unnecessarily complex and limited for its stated purpose. If it has bad requirements, that would itself be quite a weakness.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller
                                    last edited by scottalanmiller

                                    A major limitation of oVirt is that across the board is that it is just so limited. It is designed around a massively niche use case. Its a use case not really viable in the SMB or enterprise. Having to use oVirt for just a portion of management is a huge linitation. Even where it fits, it seems to fit poorly. The whole point is that it is very limited. Poibting out that it IS limited is my point. Then on top, it is overly complex.

                                    Basically in response to the issue of it being too limited is that it is meant to be limited. Sure, accepted. So it is limited by design. That doesn't change the fact that it is limited. Intentional or not, its a big negative.

                                    D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • ObsolesceO
                                      Obsolesce @scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by

                                      @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

                                      The idea behind oVirt is superior. Central web based management would be great. oVirt simply was too complex and inflexible making it worth abandoning a superior approach because it just wasnt that good at what it should be best at.

                                      oVirt isnt bad, but it absolutely has huge negatives that are glaring and unnecessary.

                                      Odd. I got it up and running very easily not very long ago.

                                      What were the issues you had if you don't mind me asking something you probably already answered somewhere.

                                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • D
                                        dyasny @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller a limitation is that it is limited. perfect!

                                        ovirt is a system designed to manage a large cluster of kvm hosts using shared storage. standalone hosts with local storage are not part of the use case. the fact that support for local stprage was added is besides the point and was done because it was a low hanging feature, not because it is really needed or used much.

                                        whatever you think enterprise needs, you are not the final authority on that. fact is, RHV has a good install base in enterprise, including your favourite Wall Street.

                                        scottalanmillerS 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • scottalanmillerS
                                          scottalanmiller @dyasny
                                          last edited by

                                          @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

                                          ovirt is a system designed to manage a large cluster of kvm hosts using shared storage.

                                          Yes, very much so, but they don't promote it that way, they promote it as being for a different use case.

                                          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmillerS
                                            scottalanmiller @dyasny
                                            last edited by

                                            @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

                                            the fact that support for local stprage was added is besides the point and was done because it was a low hanging feature, not because it is really needed or used much.

                                            But obviously core to their stated use case - central enterprise KVM management.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 13
                                            • 14
                                            • 15
                                            • 16
                                            • 17
                                            • 16 / 17
                                            • First post
                                              Last post