Testing oVirt...
-
@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-startHow 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.
-
@scottalanmiller What's the backend storage on your oVirt install, NFS, Gluster, iSCSI?
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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:
-
@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.
-
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.
-
oVirt is the RH equivalent of vSphere.
oVirt was not made to manage standalone instances of virt-manager.
-
@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.
-
What good is oVirt to an enterprise if it is for isolated low performance HA instances only? That makes no sense.
-
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)?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
