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?:
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.
Fact is: if you slow down too much you start lag functionality. And you slowly fade in uselessness.
-
@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?:
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.
Fact is: if you slow down too much you start lag functionality. And you slowly fade in uselessness.
That's true, but the fear is that Xen or KVM lose their main sponsor and slow down, maybe only a little as another sponsor will likely step in (and XAPI is not something to fear slowing down, it is only an API.) But the fear with closed source is that there is no warning and the slow down is immediate and total (to zero.)
No matter how much you fear an open source slow down, it's better than the alternative.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
I feel this becouse I can't think about a deployment without backups and so. leave naubackup at a side. what alternatives you have if you kill XAPI? naubackup is great but planning a proper retention with it is difficutl for me, due to the way backups are kept (incremental/dedup etc...).
I'm probably wrong at this. Don't know.This is based around the assumption that backups have to be done at the hypervisor "agentless" level, which is a new thing and while it has merit and value, it is limited. Would it be great if Veeam had a native agentless backup for Xen? Absolutely. Does that mean that Xen does not have backups? Not at all. You don't back up Xen or KVM, you back up the workloads. And you are free to do that with agents the way that you always have.
And in the modern world, the way that backups need to work in many cases is dramatically different than they used to. The reality is is that there are old fashioned backups (agent) and this new type (agentless) and then REALLY modern (DevOps) and it's only this one middle ground that is popular in the SMB right now that Xen lacks.
There is no lack of backups. It's just that one style of backups isn't currently available for Xen outside of XO, and that being brand new. I don't see this as even a real concern, personally. Would it be nice to add it, you bet. But it's not a serious gap of any sort.
And Xen used to have agentless backups, but it was from a closed source vendor and like is always a risk with closed source software, they decided that it didn't make enough money and it was taken off of the market.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Let say you go Xen + Unitrends on Suse (is it feaseable?) now you have lock in in the backup more than with other solutions (9 over 10 you can choose at least between Altaro/Veeam/Nakivo/open solutions).
Number of solutions is rarely valuable. All that matters is that I have "more than enough" solutions. I can use Veeam to backup my workloads, or Unitrends, or StorageCraft or hundreds of others. Sure, more is "better" but only if in that "more" are options superior to the ones that I have. Which in the case of Hyper-V or VMware ESXi non-free do exist, but not because there are more options, simply because Veeam has better options there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
No matter how much you fear an open source slow down, it's better than the alternative.
That's a point. And it fits my experience as well! sold!
ok, KVM is more reassuring:
27 contributors come from Red Hat
198 from other sources...just looking now at how old non redhatters are...
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Xen + XAPI +XO the only full open solution with proper functionality (can't think about HV without backup) but I do not feel it really open in the facts
I feel the issue here is around these two assumptions. One that XAPI and XO are even important, I don't get where this is coming from. They are nice, but until there was XO, XS was pretty crappy and no one cared. But Xen was still great. And that you feel that things that are not what open means are required makes these things seem like something is wrong when there is nothing like that.
Xen + XAPI + XO is just one of several Xen approaches which is only one set of the Xen / KVM family of approaches. There is no lock in, no limits, no requirement to use those tools.
And they ARE open, completely and totally. There isn't anything not open in reality or in spirit about them. All of the "it's all one vendor" stuff is purely an odd perception.
So here are my core points that I think are why I don't agree with you...
- I dont' agree that there is any limit on the ecosystem
- I don't agree that XAPI is important at all
- I don't agree that backups need to be agentless
- I don't agree that XAPI commits are relevant to anything
- I don't agree that current vendor sponsorship and commits indicate a lack of community participation with the absence of that vendor
- I don't agree that open requires broad participation, it requires the access of a community, not its participation, those are totally different concepts. Open has never implied that in any way.
- I don't agree that any of the values of open source are missing here
All of those points I think are wrong individually, and I think that your feeling that Xen lacks value comes from all of them building upon one another.
-
@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?:
No matter how much you fear an open source slow down, it's better than the alternative.
That's a point. And it fits my experience as well! sold!
ok, KVM is more reassuring:
27 contributors come from Red Hat
198 from other sources...just looking now at how old non redhatters are...
How about Xen, instead of XAPI. XAPI is totally unimportant. Xen commits is where it will be interesting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
And in the modern world, the way that backups need to work in many cases is dramatically different than they used to. The reality is is that there are old fashioned backups (agent) and this new type (agentless) and then REALLY modern (DevOps) and it's only this one middle ground that is popular in the SMB right now that Xen lacks.
That's also interesting... so your point is:
- do not backup infrastructure: code it.
- backup workloads with any backup tool.
And there are dedup softwares in the open also for dbs or mail servers (neglecting the fact db can backup themselves).
Only limit to this is: how much DevOps is penetrated today in SMB? Personally I've just used it recently for the part of virtual wrokload managed by me. Do not think other running VMs have been DepOps deployed honestly...
So then: maybe open source hypervisors WILL be make the difference WHEN DevOps will be ubiquitous in SMB?
-
@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?:
No matter how much you fear an open source slow down, it's better than the alternative.
That's a point. And it fits my experience as well! sold!
ok, KVM is more reassuring:
27 contributors come from Red Hat
198 from other sources...just looking now at how old non redhatters are...
How about Xen, instead of XAPI. XAPI is totally unimportant. Xen commits is where it will be interesting.
look at my previous post. XAPI is now relevent for basic maintainance. anyway I will crunch numbers for Xen too
-
@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?:
And in the modern world, the way that backups need to work in many cases is dramatically different than they used to. The reality is is that there are old fashioned backups (agent) and this new type (agentless) and then REALLY modern (DevOps) and it's only this one middle ground that is popular in the SMB right now that Xen lacks.
That's also interesting... so your point is:
- do not backup infrastructure: code it.
- backup workloads with any backup tool.
Well, you dont' back up infrastructure if you code it or not. Agentless / hypervisor backup tools don't back up the infrastructure anyway, so that is a moot point. But yes, when possible, code it, definitely.
I know that most SMBs won't but going to those other tools won't solve that gap. In reality, for a small SMB, just recreate manually.
But yes, workloads with any tool, for sure.
-
@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?:
No matter how much you fear an open source slow down, it's better than the alternative.
That's a point. And it fits my experience as well! sold!
ok, KVM is more reassuring:
27 contributors come from Red Hat
198 from other sources...just looking now at how old non redhatters are...
How about Xen, instead of XAPI. XAPI is totally unimportant. Xen commits is where it will be interesting.
look at my previous post. XAPI is now relevent for basic maintainance. anyway I will crunch numbers for Xen too
Only relevant in that it's one of several options. And neither the most basic, nor the most advanced.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Only limit to this is: how much DevOps is penetrated today in SMB?
How much "is" doesn't matter. When talking about what to do for planning, whether or not other shops do it is not a rational factor. SMB has had DevOps for a long time, that's where it had its resurgence. The problem is most SMBs have things in place and just leave them there. So "better ways to do things" don't sneak in very often. But that doesn't mean that it isn't sensible or what should be done.
But I'm not saying it is, only that that is not a good way to think about it.
Example: Most SMBs don't take backups. Would we use that as a reason to consider backups something to be avoided?
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
do not backup infrastructure: code it.
sorry bad wording. Infrastructure: the set of VM you run your applications on and you need to reconfigure if you loose them because of weak backups.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
So then: maybe open source hypervisors WILL be make the difference WHEN DevOps will be ubiquitous in SMB?
No, open source matters to every business, of every size, always. Nothing we've discussed plays a role in that. Open source always matters. All of the discussion around hypervisors is really about understanding why those particular products have advantages and good momentum. None of it reflects on source licensing's benefits which are universal and guaranteed.
-
@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?:
do not backup infrastructure: code it.
sorry bad wording. Infrastructure: the set of VM you run your applications on and you need to reconfigure if you loose them because of weak backups.
Agent backups are not weak, often they are more robust. They carry many advantages which is why they are the primary style used in cloud computing. There is no need for DevOps here, that's another assumption. I offered it as a third option that doesn't require the strong reliance on robust backups at all, but I was clear that traditional robust backups were still available as they always were.
You only stop taking backups when you move to infrastructure as code, but that is a separate thing than agent vs agentless backups.
-
@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?:
KVM/libvirt is basically a Red Hat show. If Red Hat will drop KVM there will really be someone which will step up and will continue the development?
It's not owned by or controlled by RH. RH is not likely to drop it, less likely that MS dropping Hyper-V. Knowing that someone else will pick it up and that all they will do is lose control is one of the many benefits of open source to us, the consumers. It keeps RH from dropping things in a way that we don't have protection with for closed source.
KVM is part of Linux, not RH. It's heavily contributed to by Canonical and Suse but, more importantly, IBM. Even if RH walked away today, KVM is not in the slightest danger. If MS did that to Hyper-V, it would be over - period.
So yes, the open source nature here provides us the most extreme level of benefits and protection that exist in the industry.
In world where every good opensource project gets forked at least 2 times... ahm ahm Keepass and KeePassX
and KeePassXC. Firefox and its other clones. Chromium based browsers.Even if the worst scenario happened and all abandoned the KVM train, we would have XKVM and KVM+ and KVMnot in mere days.
-
ok put this simply. I go open source because it has more benefits then freeware. So I pick projects which do not depend on single corporate devel groups. Assume XAPI is not this. at least for the sake of stats I've extracted from git.
you go on premise with KVM on CentOS OR with Xen on opensuse leap (I would not go on ubuntu or debian - that's another topic).
Then I have to administer it. all open source because it pays more than freeware. I will use virt-manager with libvirt. This is ok with KVM even live migration is there. but Xen?
it starts appearing a bit risky IMHO probably XenCenter is the solution here. ok we hit another problem with XenCenter. just skip it.What about open source backup for VMs? To my knowledge you can eihter buy super big NASes for a longer retention policy of the OSes OR you backup the app (as I do in my web apps) and you simply try to make the OS backup irrelevant, AKA DevOps style a-la salt/ansible.
Otherwise you need baremetal-like restore of the OS. Which open source project does this?
Of course a proper mix of LVM snapshots, mount, rsnapshot (rsync) can do the work, but home made backup solution is probably NOT the way I would go in SMB (I did it with KVM just at LVM level, no dedup with rsnapshot - and retention was poor).
just link me to a proper quick to setup solution and honestly I will be able to sold benefits of opensource over freeware.
I miss this now. Then I will be able to sold openness even at hypervisor level not only application/OS level! -
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
ok put this simply. I go open source because it has more benefits then freeware. So I pick projects which do not depend on single corporate devel groups. Assume XAPI is not this. at least for the sake of stats I've extracted from git.
you go on premise with KVM on CentOS OR with Xen on opensuse leap (I would not go on ubuntu or debian - that's another topic).
Then I have to administer it. all open source because it pays more than freeware.
No, you go open source because it has more advantages than any other license type. Not compared to freeware, compared to non-opensource.
-
@msff-amman-Itofficer 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?:
KVM/libvirt is basically a Red Hat show. If Red Hat will drop KVM there will really be someone which will step up and will continue the development?
It's not owned by or controlled by RH. RH is not likely to drop it, less likely that MS dropping Hyper-V. Knowing that someone else will pick it up and that all they will do is lose control is one of the many benefits of open source to us, the consumers. It keeps RH from dropping things in a way that we don't have protection with for closed source.
KVM is part of Linux, not RH. It's heavily contributed to by Canonical and Suse but, more importantly, IBM. Even if RH walked away today, KVM is not in the slightest danger. If MS did that to Hyper-V, it would be over - period.
So yes, the open source nature here provides us the most extreme level of benefits and protection that exist in the industry.
In world where every good opensource project gets forked at least 2 times... ahm ahm Keepass and KeePassX
and KeePassXC. Firefox and its other clones. Chromium based browsers.Even if the worst scenario happened and all abandoned the KVM train, we would have XKVM and KVM+ and KVMnot in mere days.
Exactly, short of Linux itelf, (which KVM is actually) there are likely no other projects more protected in the last decade or so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
No, you go open source because it has more advantages than any other license type. Not compared to freeware, compared to non-opensource.
I know, but to the SMB free of charge is quite a reason! so I started comparing to freeware. SMB here are not interested in Red Hat/SLES support. They go CentOS.
