If all hypervisors were priced the same...
-
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.
And even for support the cost is nominal.
KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.
If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.
I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.
And even for support the cost is nominal.
KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.
If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.
I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.
Would you agree Virt Manager, Hyper-V Manager, XenCenter and Xen Orchestra UI a lot easier to use for the first-time users?
-
@black3dynamite said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.
And even for support the cost is nominal.
KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.
If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.
I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.
Would you agree Virt Manager, Hyper-V Manager, XenCenter and Xen Orchestra UI a lot easier to use for the first-time users?
Well those run a wide gamut. Some just as easy or easier, some much harder. I think VMware just fits into the field on the easy side, but "in the field."
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?
If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.
Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.
-
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?
If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.
Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.
So what you're saying is if every hypervisor offered support and all features at no cost (because with XS or KVM you have community support) but actually "professional support" at no cost, which would be chosen?
Likely the one with the longest track record of support. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?
If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.
Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.
So what you're saying is if every hypervisor offered support and all features at no cost (because with XS or KVM you have community support) but actually "professional support" at no cost, which would be chosen?
Likely the one with the longest track record of support. . .
Why do people mention length of track record? How is that relevant in any way to anything we do? I see this a lot but have no idea what value comes from "having offered support for a long time." That reflects a monetization effort and nothing of quality, stability, support value, longevity, future options, etc. Nothing we care about.
Xen has been around the longest, and likely support has been available much longer than VMware. Then VMware. Simply because they are old. But by that logic, IBM S/360 predates them all. But obviously, is useless.
-
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
-
-
VMware ESXi cause It was the first to put web UI i reckon for management of the hyper-visor, and alot of people hated this and there was backlash, but they continued with the flash then HTML5 FLEX UI, and after while it was the sensible thing to do, it was not full featured nor fast like C# windows client but eventually they will reach it.
Vmware being popular makes it easy to export/import VMs as well, if it was fully unlocked with backup API, once you have web management port that means you can reach it from anywhere using anything device with chrome browser on it. -
KVM, not cause of KVM cause it runs and actively supported and updated on Linux OSes, so eventually we will get all the features if not more, and benefits and more of ESXi via external packages like mdraid + cockpit, so you can build pretty strong system but the learning curve can scare people away.
-
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
"A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".
-
@emad-r said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
- VMware ESXi cause It was the first to put web UI i reckon for management of the hyper-visor, ...
Was it? Maybe, I'm not sure. But we were all begging for it from everyone at the time that they did it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
"A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".
In either case, you can see how well a business performs and offer their services over a long period of time.
If they start off great, but that quickly ends and then has been shit for a very long time would you want to do business with that business?
Of course not.
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
"A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".
In either case, you can see how well a business performs and offer their services over a long period of time.
If they start off great, but that quickly ends and then has been shit for a very long time would you want to do business with that business?
Of course not.
I don't really care about anything like that over a long period of time. I think info that isn't relevant is misleading. Whether they were good and got bad, bad and got good, stay good... I don't care. None of that tells me something useful. Where they are now and factors that influence them into the future matter, how they got here really doesn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
"A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".
In either case, you can see how well a business performs and offer their services over a long period of time.
If they start off great, but that quickly ends and then has been shit for a very long time would you want to do business with that business?
Of course not.
I don't really care about anything like that over a long period of time. I think info that isn't relevant is misleading. Whether they were good and got bad, bad and got good, stay good... I don't care. None of that tells me something useful. Where they are now and factors that influence them into the future matter, how they got here really doesn't.
Ha. . .
OK so then let us take XS, it was great, went down hill because of Citrix and is now coming back* due to @olivier and the community. Wouldn't you want to know that history so you know what kind of trouble you may have, and how they could impact the situation you're in today?
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.
You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.
"A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".
In either case, you can see how well a business performs and offer their services over a long period of time.
If they start off great, but that quickly ends and then has been shit for a very long time would you want to do business with that business?
Of course not.
I don't really care about anything like that over a long period of time. I think info that isn't relevant is misleading. Whether they were good and got bad, bad and got good, stay good... I don't care. None of that tells me something useful. Where they are now and factors that influence them into the future matter, how they got here really doesn't.
Ha. . .
OK so then let us take XS, it was great, went down hill because of Citrix and is now coming back* due to @olivier and the community. Wouldn't you want to know that history so you know what kind of trouble you may have, and how they could impact the situation you're in today?
No, because the history MIGHT lead me to believe that Citrix might step in again. That's not really useful as they are no more likely to be a problem with XS in the future than they are with KVM. That is to say very small chance on either, but some chance on either.
That history event is interesting, but not useful in any way for providing a useful look as to the current or future value.
-
If features and costs (free) were identical across the board, I would choose KVM hands down.
I love being able to run off Fedora Server, plus all the doors that open up by doing that... which you can't get from Hyper-V or VMWare.
Sure Xen can be installed on there too, but it's dieing and I'm less familiar with it.
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
If KVM came in a simple to install with management interface and backup appliance I would lean more towards that as its ingrained with the kernel.
Uh you just install the OS, check the hypervisor box, and you have it. It couldn't be easier.
-
All things equal, I'd prob go VMware. I just want a usable API for things like Terraform and Ansible. I have a few VMware servers at work and it's nice to be able to spin them up with Ansible while defining MACs and such. However Id rather do cloud over anything else.
-
It's so funny that you posted this. I just thought about this while on my way to work today. I was also wondering what the consensus would be.
-
@stacksofplates said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
All things equal, I'd prob go VMware. I just want a usable API for things like Terraform and Ansible. I have a few VMware servers at work and it's nice to be able to spin them up with Ansible while defining MACs and such. However Id rather do cloud over anything else.
You can do that with SaltStack and KVM.
-
@stacksofplates said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
If KVM came in a simple to install with management interface and backup appliance I would lean more towards that as its ingrained with the kernel.
Uh you just install the OS, check the hypervisor box, and you have it. It couldn't be easier.
The management and backup and console and everything else isn't as simple. Maybe I just need more hardware to test with but it's all been cumbersome.
