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.
-
@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.
-
@dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@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 simply. Maybe I just need more hardware to test with but it's all been cumbersome.
Management is pretty easy.
I can't really speak to backups though because I don't really back any of the VMs up.
-
VMware all the way. It’s a largely superior product, period.
-
@wrx7m said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
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.
Great minds, etc. etc.
-
It really comes down to "if VMware was free", would it make a difference.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
It really comes down to "if VMware was free", would it make a difference.
That's a fair summation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@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.
I was in highschool I think and it was a pretty big deal I remember.
-
@coliver said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:
@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.
I was in highschool I think and it was a pretty big deal I remember.
OMG HS, for most of us this "just happened".
-
Personally if VMWare with all features was free I would go with that. Only because it's what I know and have used for production since I started using virtualization.
But I am starting to learn more about XenServer (soon to be XCP-ng) and KVM so I might change my mind over the next few years.
-
-
@emad-r Yeah, very hard to get easier than that.
