Hypervisors: revisit your choices!
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
That is already sounding expensive for no reason. Why not a $2.50 / mo VPS? That's way cheaper than server hardware, and all the time and resources spend dealing with that.
Where did I say anything about VPS's?
-
I think he's asking why are you hosting at all? why not just buy VPS instead?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
That is already sounding expensive for no reason. Why not a $2.50 / mo VPS? That's way cheaper than server hardware, and all the time and resources spend dealing with that.
Where did I say anything about VPS's?
We'll I'd certainly not be considering hosting a hypervisor and server for no reason at all, so im assuming it's to host some kind of virtual server. But with zero reasons why, I'd default to the cheapest possible option to get the basic requirement met... which is a VPS, also for no reason.
-
"I need a tool, which manufacturer should I choose? " is all I see here.
-
@Obsolesce Because the point of the question is discussing hypervisor not specific scenarios. If he was asking you to solve his fucking problem he would’ve stated his fucking problem
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
That is already sounding expensive for no reason. Why not a $2.50 / mo VPS? That's way cheaper than server hardware, and all the time and resources spend dealing with that.
So KVM is your choice then. VPS isnt an alternative here. Just a way to purchase your KVM.
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
"I need a tool, which manufacturer should I choose? " is all I see here.
And you answered "blue" .... yes all the tools come in blue. But blue doesnt relate to the question of which one.
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@FATeknollogee said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
That is already sounding expensive for no reason. Why not a $2.50 / mo VPS? That's way cheaper than server hardware, and all the time and resources spend dealing with that.
Where did I say anything about VPS's?
We'll I'd certainly not be considering hosting a hypervisor and server for no reason at all, so im assuming it's to host some kind of virtual server. But with zero reasons why, I'd default to the cheapest possible option to get the basic requirement met... which is a VPS, also for no reason.
Thats not the cheapest for anyone I know. The cheapest would be to use whatever you have laying around or on your desktop. But you answered a question of "what" with a "how" - and not a very likely one. VPS is only the cheapest for a tiny sliver of use cases. For most companies it is way more expensive.
-
Id agree. KVM is where Id start. Only rarely would I consider sonething else.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
"I need a tool, which manufacturer should I choose? " is all I see here.
And you answered "blue" .... yes all the tools come in blue. But blue doesnt relate to the question of which one.
No, what I'm trying to say is how do you pick a tool without knowing what you are doing or building? Why do you start with a hammer? Why a blue hammer and not orange? Do you need to build something? What? why? Where? In this case, selecting a hypervisor without knowing anything else at all. Is a hypervisor even needed? Who knows! He said starting from scratch, what does that mean? Fresh startup? Existing company fully in Cloud wanting to go onprem? Existing company somehow without existing server infrastructure?
I think this would have been way better worded as "What is your favorite hypervisor", because the one you actually would use depends.
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
No, what I'm trying to say is how do you pick a tool without knowing what you are doing or building? Why do you start with a hammer? Why a blue hammer and not orange? Do you need to build something? What? why? Where? In this case, selecting a hypervisor without knowing anything else at all. Is a hypervisor even needed?
Well, yes, when is a hypervisor not needed? Presumably this is for a server. We've been saying for over a decade that you start with a hypervisor. Is there an edge case somewhere where you don't? Okay, yes, but it's such an extreme case. And the question isn't whether or not to use a hypervisor, but what hypervisor is your choice. That question means that we are already in the situation of having a hypervisor, so that there are edge cases where you don't have one aren't part of the equation. It's like asking what car you recommend... just because you recommend one doesn't imply that you recommend never doing anything but driving. Or having a favourite hamburger doesn't mean that you don't sometimes choose pizza.
Now, how do you pick a tool when you don't know what you are building? Well in this case we aren't picking a "type of tool", we are picking a "make of tool". You don't need to know that you are going to be building a house or a cabinet in order to pick out a tool maker. The best hammer is generally the best hammer, regardless of what you will be pounding.
The question really isn't that ambiguous as you are thinking that it is. We already know that we are discussing hammers. Any scenario where a hammer isn't the choice isn't relevant. Now knowing that we are getting a hammer, what hammer would we chose?
Now you might say "but there are four hammers that all work, you can't just choose one!" I don't think that this is the case. It's not hard to make a case for having one that you choose when allowed to make the choice. Sure, in general I would say that there are rare cases where I'd vary based on very special needs. But I think that people understand that this isn't a "the only one I'd every consider", but rather a "go to choice that makes sense in all but the rarest circumstances."
In the real world, of the four plausible options here, only two cross my radar and one of them is "extremely niche to the point of not being sure when I'd ever choose it." So really digging into the question, being as pedantic and semantic as possible, I think there is actually a very good possibility of a sensible answer that people can give and none of the "what if" kind of questions actual alter it.
-
There are so many variables but I really like KVM and xcp-ng. Both are rock stable and both have paid support (e.g. RHEL) if needed.
I lean more toward xcp-ng since it’s a bit less “dev ops” than KVM.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
No, what I'm trying to say is how do you pick a tool without knowing what you are doing or building? Why do you start with a hammer? Why a blue hammer and not orange? Do you need to build something? What? why? Where? In this case, selecting a hypervisor without knowing anything else at all. Is a hypervisor even needed?
Well, yes, when is a hypervisor not needed? Presumably this is for a server. We've been saying for over a decade that you start with a hypervisor. Is there an edge case somewhere where you don't? Okay, yes, but it's such an extreme case. And the question isn't whether or not to use a hypervisor, but what hypervisor is your choice. That question means that we are already in the situation of having a hypervisor, so that there are edge cases where you don't have one aren't part of the equation. It's like asking what car you recommend... just because you recommend one doesn't imply that you recommend never doing anything but driving. Or having a favourite hamburger doesn't mean that you don't sometimes choose pizza.
Now, how do you pick a tool when you don't know what you are building? Well in this case we aren't picking a "type of tool", we are picking a "make of tool". You don't need to know that you are going to be building a house or a cabinet in order to pick out a tool maker. The best hammer is generally the best hammer, regardless of what you will be pounding.
The question really isn't that ambiguous as you are thinking that it is. We already know that we are discussing hammers. Any scenario where a hammer isn't the choice isn't relevant. Now knowing that we are getting a hammer, what hammer would we chose?
Now you might say "but there are four hammers that all work, you can't just choose one!" I don't think that this is the case. It's not hard to make a case for having one that you choose when allowed to make the choice. Sure, in general I would say that there are rare cases where I'd vary based on very special needs. But I think that people understand that this isn't a "the only one I'd every consider", but rather a "go to choice that makes sense in all but the rarest circumstances."
In the real world, of the four plausible options here, only two cross my radar and one of them is "extremely niche to the point of not being sure when I'd ever choose it." So really digging into the question, being as pedantic and semantic as possible, I think there is actually a very good possibility of a sensible answer that people can give and none of the "what if" kind of questions actual alter it.
Exactly my point. It's entirely subjective, based on personal experience and expertise, etc., no basis behind the question.
-
Well I'm probably naive but i took it to mean that hypervisor=toolbox in this scenario. Add tools as needed. Hyper-v works but I also prefer kvm. I read a book a few months ago on it and worked through the multitude of exercises in it and its a lot more powerful than I realized. Also, this doesn't have to be for a server either so that has to be taken into consideration. For example, I run kvm on all my 2 laptops and 1 desktop at home and on 2 machines at work. Use windows vm's when I need something from there.
-
Hypervisors are commodities.
It's going to be other things besides the actual hypervisor that will determine what the best hypervisor is going to be. Like the ecosystem where the hypervisor will live and the software choices in that ecosystem that have already been made - technical debt if you will. And of course management of the infrastructure and risks, costs, policies, hardware etc.
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
Exactly my point. It's entirely subjective, based on personal experience and expertise, etc., no basis behind the question.
How you read the original post & concluded with VPS is a head scratcher.
This thread is about choice of hypervisors.
Feel free to start your own thread about VPS's, if you prefer VPS's, good for you. -
@scottalanmiller said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
The best hammer is generally the best hammer, regardless of what you will be pounding.
Hehehe......
-
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
Exactly my point.
You obviously cannot comprehend what you read because he was most certaily not agreeing with you or making your point for you.
Because your fucking point was to use VPS. Which has not a damned fucking thing to do with this discussion.
-
@FATeknollogee said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
No Type 2 discussion here.
Was having a discussion with myself & just wondering out loud........
Tomorrow, if I was starting from scratch, I would use "........"
Started in 05/06 with Virtual Iron (VI got "swallowed" by Oracle).
then switched to Hyper-V (it was beta, back in the '06 timeframe).
Since then, I've also tried some XenServer, oVirt & ESXi.
Currently use KVM.Now back to that tomorrow statement....
For a standalone setup, my 1st choice would be KVM + Virt-Manager.
For a hyperconverged setup, my 1st choice would be VMware + VSAN.I'd never even bother with Hyper-V.
My first choice is KVM, but that said I never use it at a client.
Because I want tools for backups. So because of that need, I use Hyper-V and Veeam and such.
That said Veeam's pricing is changing. So I will now have to determine if the work to script/handle KVM backups myself is no longer a lot more expensive than using Hyper-V + Veeam.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
@Obsolesce said in Hypervisors: revisit your choices!:
Exactly my point.
You obviously cannot comprehend what you read because he was most certaily not agreeing with you or making your point for you.
Because your fucking point was to use VPS. Which has not a damned fucking thing to do with this discussion.
The VPS was definitely NOT the point of anything I said. Not the point at all. I specified the point several times, the VPS part wasn't my point.
I think it's you who fucking needs to fucking comprehend.
