KVM or VMWare
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
You make these claims but never have any proof.
Same in reverse. You act as though I have to prove the obvious and logical, while you don't have to have any foundation for wild claims that make no sense and don't have any obvious foundation.
You made the claim. You need to provide the proof.
Others in the thread have the same experience I do. You solely are the one with the experience you are mentioning.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
There are multiple people in this thread who have worked with and are currently working with large enterprises but you dismiss their claims and somehow believe what you think you are seeing is more of a reality than what everyone else is.
Because their claims are false. Claiming that something doesn't exist because you haven't seen it or looked the other way or don't work in that department is not useful when other people in the same firms work on that technology every day.
It's like you ask two people who walked through a house if there is a cat. One says "there is no cat" and the other says "I saw one in the bedroom". The one who saw the cat has more useful information than the one that didn't see it. It's no one's fault, it is just that finding evidence vs. not finding evidence, one has way more value than the other.
No matter how many people claim that they know what big companies do, unless you are the CIO, and even then, you likely have a tiny slice of view that is heavily influenced by the work that you do. What matters is that yes, people who do VMware work likely don't see the KVM work and vice versa. The claim however, should be that "I see lots of VMware in the enterprise" rather than "KVM doesn't get used in the enterprise" or whatever. I'm not saying that enterprises don't use VMware, or that skills don't exist, only that KVM is used and skills do exist.
So I'm disputing your belief or statements that there are no skills and it isn't used. I know it is, so I know that you are lying. Either because you honestly have not been exposed to much variety (likely due to doing one specific type of work) or because you are just unwilling to tell the truth. But your experience that says KVM isn't used and the skills don't exist is demonstrably false. I suspect you are just exposed to certain areas because that is the work that you do. I don't think you are attempting ot intentionally mislead us. But I think you have blinders on and don't realize how much variety exists in enterprises. Nearly every super large business does a lot of everything, there's no single way to skin that cat we just discovered and big business whether by design or happenstance tends to do lots of it.
BUt also, even at the CIO level, big business often can't tell you what tech is in place because they aren't getting their hands that dirty. CIOs will often have a very myopic view of their organizations and given extremely misleading data because their troops are deploying and supporting things without telling them.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
No. the implication is that the use of the product is dumbed down so that SMBs need fewer / simpler skills and knowledge to run it.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
Manual installs have their place, to set up the template. Even if you're only deploying one server it should be from a template because it's repeatable. Updates are easier and quicker with templates. Just because you are charging your customers more so you can do manual work instead of automating it doesn't mean others are trying to sell something.
Exaclty the opposite. Since the average business installs only one instance (remember, average businesses are super small) the time to do what you are saying is all above and beyond the work done in teh lifespan of a workload. on average.
Tons and tons of places you are correct, should be templates. But stating "all" is simply BS.
The time to do what I"m saying might add 10 minutes, maybe. To have a system you can rebuild instantly. It only helps you in the long run.
You mean just taking a snapshot after the OS is installed? That's fine, take it. But the install is already done. Sure, you can use the template on the next install, if it ever happens.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
Manual installs have their place, to set up the template. Even if you're only deploying one server it should be from a template because it's repeatable. Updates are easier and quicker with templates. Just because you are charging your customers more so you can do manual work instead of automating it doesn't mean others are trying to sell something.
Exaclty the opposite. Since the average business installs only one instance (remember, average businesses are super small) the time to do what you are saying is all above and beyond the work done in teh lifespan of a workload. on average.
Tons and tons of places you are correct, should be templates. But stating "all" is simply BS.
The time to do what I"m saying might add 10 minutes, maybe. To have a system you can rebuild instantly. It only helps you in the long run.
You mean just taking a snapshot after the OS is installed? That's fine, take it. But the install is already done. Sure, you can use the template on the next install, if it ever happens.
Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. What else could I possibly have been talking about?
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
Except you still haven't provided any proof that these exceptions exist. You're still making claims like "we see them all the time". That doesn't mean anything. You made the claim the talent is there, the onus is on you to prove that it exists.
Like I said, it means way more than your lack of seeing it. No amount of people not seeing it does not mean anything compared to one or two people who do see it. The entire basis of the claim is on people just assuming that the skills aren't out there because they've not seen them.
Think of a scout seeing an invading army. The village might have thousands of people who never notice the army coming. BUt the view of that one scout means way more than all of the people in the village combined because he was in the right spot to run into the "resources" of the army.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
No. the implication is that the use of the product is dumbed down so that SMBs need fewer / simpler skills and knowledge to run it.
I mean VMware is simpler to use but it's also more powerful right out of the box.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
Manual installs have their place, to set up the template. Even if you're only deploying one server it should be from a template because it's repeatable. Updates are easier and quicker with templates. Just because you are charging your customers more so you can do manual work instead of automating it doesn't mean others are trying to sell something.
Exaclty the opposite. Since the average business installs only one instance (remember, average businesses are super small) the time to do what you are saying is all above and beyond the work done in teh lifespan of a workload. on average.
Tons and tons of places you are correct, should be templates. But stating "all" is simply BS.
The time to do what I"m saying might add 10 minutes, maybe. To have a system you can rebuild instantly. It only helps you in the long run.
You mean just taking a snapshot after the OS is installed? That's fine, take it. But the install is already done. Sure, you can use the template on the next install, if it ever happens.
Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. What else could I possibly have been talking about?
The initial install. The problem being, it's not that fast to template your VMware or KVM or whatever install because it is bare metal. You can do it, but it's just not that fast for a company with no cloning infrastructure. Is it huge, no. But that's the install that matters more.
Taking a clone is fine, but now you either have to maintain that template or it gets old and you have an ancient template sitting somewhere that is just as out of date as the initial OS install, or nearly (sure it'll have SOME updates.) It's only good for any length of time if you aren't keeping your systems updated (meaning it'll be for the wrong OS version after a couple years) and you have to store it and know where it is when, alternatively, you can just download a fresh install or have it ready to go.
The point is yes, it's easy at the OS level to have the bare OS as a template. That's completely true. But if on average that is never used, it's still just wasted effort. And what does it hedge against, an OS install is only a few minutes anyway. A few MORE minutes, yes, but something that almost never happens in an average business. I think you'd find over a large scale study that in single workload SMBs that the use of templates, no matter how quick they are and how little extra storage that they take up, that they end up costing more time than they save.
Get any bigger, have two or three running VMs, and everything changes and you are spot on. Template every time.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
No. the implication is that the use of the product is dumbed down so that SMBs need fewer / simpler skills and knowledge to run it.
I mean VMware is simpler to use but it's also more powerful right out of the box.
I don't agree with simpler to use. I don't know of any tech that has used both to any degree that spends less time on VMware. I'm not saying VMware is hard. I'd put it as easier than Hyper-V. Hyper-V is likely the hardest. But VMware with a web GUI compared to KVM options with web GUI, I'll take KVM for pure ease of use.
If you are going to pure CLI, maybe VMware is easier. Not done either with only CLI enough to truly compare. Both easier than Hyper-V again, I'm sure.
But the number of companies I"ve dealt with that couldn't even get to the VMware install because they had licensing issues beyond their ken isn't a statistical anomaly. That alone adds a lot of overhead before there is any money involved. Everyone tends to ignore licensing as part of the support and workload, but it's often the most significant part. We get called in sometimes only for that!
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because their claims are false. Claiming that something doesn't exist because you haven't seen it or looked the other way or don't work in that department is not useful when other people in the same firms work on that technology every day.
And here's the crux. Again only your experience matters. Claiming that something does exist because you've interacted with a few people who do it does not mean that it's widely available.
I worked exclusively with KVM fairly deeply for years.
I'm not saying that enterprises don't use VMware, or that skills don't exist, only that KVM is used and skills do exist.
I never said the skills don't exist. I'm arguing this is false
But at the end of the day, KVM skills are available and affordable.You later clarified that KVM skills includes performance tuning, automation, monitoring, etc. I'm arguing that these skills are not "widely available".
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
No. the implication is that the use of the product is dumbed down so that SMBs need fewer / simpler skills and knowledge to run it.
I mean VMware is simpler to use but it's also more powerful right out of the box.
I don't agree with simpler to use. I don't know of any tech that has used both to any degree that spends less time on VMware. I'm not saying VMware is hard. I'd put it as easier than Hyper-V. Hyper-V is likely the hardest. But VMware with a web GUI compared to KVM options with web GUI, I'll take KVM for pure ease of use.
If you are going to pure CLI, maybe VMware is easier. Not done either with only CLI enough to truly compare. Both easier than Hyper-V again, I'm sure.
But the number of companies I"ve dealt with that couldn't even get to the VMware install because they had licensing issues beyond their ken isn't a statistical anomaly. That alone adds a lot of overhead before there is any money involved. Everyone tends to ignore licensing as part of the support and workload, but it's often the most significant part. We get called in sometimes only for that!
That's only because KVM has about 20% of the options through a web gui. You specifically said before you weren't talking about Proxmox, so we must be talking about through Cockpit. And at this point, clicking around in a gui is not KVM expertise. If you can build a VM in one web UI, you can do it in almost any web ui. They are very similar.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Taking a clone is fine, but now you either have to maintain that template or it gets old and you have an ancient template sitting somewhere that is just as out of date as the initial OS install, or nearly (sure it'll have SOME updates.) It's only good for any length of time if you aren't keeping your systems updated (meaning it'll be for the wrong OS version after a couple years) and you have to store it and know where it is when, alternatively, you can just download a fresh install or have it ready to go.
If you dont' separate data and OS then yes. But if you have a separate data disk, updates get applied to the template and you just reattach data to the cloned image.
Who out there who actually knows what they are doing, doesn't separate data and OS and then not have the ability to spin up a new system immediately this way? It alleviates a ton of issues.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
And what does it hedge against, an OS install is only a few minutes anyway.
This discounts any specific setup. Sure you can install an OS in a couple minutes but when you need any customization it adds up exponentially.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
You later clarified that KVM skills includes performance tuning, automation, monitoring, etc. I'm arguing that these skills are not "widely available".
Here's how my experience (okay, just my personal experience) went last week...
On a call with a major vendor talking about a customer solution (no customer on the call.) All of the managers kept saying "We need VMware because who is going to support KVM?" And the support team kept saying "What are you talking about, you are a KVM vendor will a full KVM support organization and we don't have those skills in VMware and will have to farm it out." Even inside of an organization that specifically does KVM and not VMware, the sales people and managers were so set on how we buy support, forgetting that IT does support itself, that they couldn't understand the concept that they themselves actually did things. They perceived the ability to hire VMware to deal with some limited issues as being support, and their own support infrastructure ready to support the entire stack from application to cablling as being.... who knows what. Support to them was always something you bought.
This was a dramatic example, but it's what I see a lot. People and orgs look at support differently based on what they want to sell or what they want to hear or just how they are emotionally tied to the decision. In this case we had worlds more KVM support than we did VMware support and yet they couldn't even accept it when the CIO nearly blew his top yelling at them about what the heck they were on about. But to them, sales people for VMware (literally, I don't mean people at VMware but actual sales people) products were more support than the IT people who do KVM day in and day out. We couldn't even get them to explain how VMware was going to support all the non-virtualization parts, to them the entirety of IT was wrapped up in VMware and they weren't aware of the workloads!
This is how I feel the industry goes. People say "there is no support for KVM (or very little) and we'll never be able to get it" and yet if you look for KVM people, I've never heard of anyone, ever, looking for KVM resources and failing to find them at any size. I've never heard of someone failing to find VMware resources, either. But there is a strong trend to repeat the "there is no KVM support", which is just the new "there is no Linux support" which was never true. On Wall St. hiring Linux was way easier than hiring Windows after about 2006. It's easy to say "we couldn't find anyone", but if you really ask, not many ever looked.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
And what does it hedge against, an OS install is only a few minutes anyway.
This discounts any specific setup. Sure you can install an OS in a couple minutes but when you need any customization it adds up exponentially.
Absolutely. But if you are using some kind of OS automation it doesn't necessarily make any real difference. If you lack the automation, then cloning / templating because much more important. But you have to keep it up to date.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Because people are too busy selling VMware to those SMBs because almost no one is out there protecting them. Telling them that those KVM resources won't help them or cost too much and that they need "dumbed down" systems because they are small shops.
Out of the box VMware is more powerful than KVM. There's no one claiming that VMware is dumbing down the virtualization.
No. the implication is that the use of the product is dumbed down so that SMBs need fewer / simpler skills and knowledge to run it.
I mean VMware is simpler to use but it's also more powerful right out of the box.
I don't agree with simpler to use. I don't know of any tech that has used both to any degree that spends less time on VMware. I'm not saying VMware is hard. I'd put it as easier than Hyper-V. Hyper-V is likely the hardest. But VMware with a web GUI compared to KVM options with web GUI, I'll take KVM for pure ease of use.
If you are going to pure CLI, maybe VMware is easier. Not done either with only CLI enough to truly compare. Both easier than Hyper-V again, I'm sure.
But the number of companies I"ve dealt with that couldn't even get to the VMware install because they had licensing issues beyond their ken isn't a statistical anomaly. That alone adds a lot of overhead before there is any money involved. Everyone tends to ignore licensing as part of the support and workload, but it's often the most significant part. We get called in sometimes only for that!
That's only because KVM has about 20% of the options through a web gui. You specifically said before you weren't talking about Proxmox, so we must be talking about through Cockpit. And at this point, clicking around in a gui is not KVM expertise. If you can build a VM in one web UI, you can do it in almost any web ui. They are very similar.
The two things that bring us in most for VMware is people having licensing issues, or having lost access to the GUI. If the GUI is up and working and licensed, mostly people muddle through. Maybe at great cost, maybe at huge risk, etc. but they make "something happen".
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
Taking a clone is fine, but now you either have to maintain that template or it gets old and you have an ancient template sitting somewhere that is just as out of date as the initial OS install, or nearly (sure it'll have SOME updates.)
This is one place where KVM shines, but only libvirt/QEMU. You can update templates without spinning them up through libguestfs and the next time the template is cloned, the clone has all of the updates.
KVM has a lot of features like this, but it needs automated, is limited to libvirt (which cuts down the number of places KVM is deployed), and needs separate tools installed which are only cli based.
If KVM had APIs (not just REST APIs) like VMware, the whole landscape would change, but they don't. The APIs are hard to use and don't have all of the features you would expect. You can't even clone a system with virsh. You need a separate tool to do a lot of manual work behind the scenes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM or VMWare:
On a call with a major vendor talking about a customer solution (no customer on the call.) All of the managers kept saying "We need VMware because who is going to support KVM?" And the support team kept saying "What are you talking about, you are a KVM vendor will a full KVM support organization and we don't have those skills in VMware and will have to farm it out."
Who was this? People don't believe things you say because you make statements like this and never say who it is. It sounds completely made up.
I could say yesterday I talked with a client who said they wanted to run SQL server on a Mac pro. If I never give details who these places are no one will believe me.
I understand NDAs but you have to at least be able to give some more information than "major vendor".
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM or VMWare:
Who was this? People don't believe things you say because you make statements like this and never say who it is. It sounds completely made up.
In IT rarely can you disclose the players involved.
