Hypervisor, hypervisor - who's got the best hypervisor?
-
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
And I have that today with AppAssure Replay. I can get agents for Windows and Linux. But their cost is really high. Veeam smokes them in this space.
One of the things that AppAssure Replay 4 had (I don't think 5 does - but have to check) was the ability to actually use the VM during a restore process. While it was slow as molasses, it was an option if you had to get something back online fast. though I'll admit I don't need that feature.
-
@Dashrender said:
Originally Dustin could only get full backups, no incremental/differential ones. I see that has been solved by using XO.
Oh, I thought his "solved by using XO" was the painful experience that you were referring to. You were referring to a previous attempt that he had made before XO.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
he is using the free version. XO came on here and made a point that no features are locked to the paid version. They are truly FOSS and everything is available for free if you set it up yourself and run without support.
-
@Dashrender I am still currently producing Fulls using NAUBackup for my production VM's. Because and only because I haven't completed the XO build with proper equipment.
It works, but takes up way more storage. Also it's free.
XO (from the sources) is free, and has Delta functionality. I'll likely be disabling the NAUBackup Crontab job shortly once I get this XO build up to what I find comfortable.
But you should totally check out both, they each have their own merits.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
The free version.
-
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
Right, that makes sense.
-
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
It counts as building it when you double click to install right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
You do have to type npm build
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
Agent Based backups defeat the purpose of a virtualized infrastructure.
-
I'm just confused now.
In windows, I download an EXE, MSI, etc and double click on it and it asks me some questions and then installs itself.
Deploying from Source definitely (to me) sounds like you will have C or whatever, code that needs to be compiled, then deployed to the proper directories to be installed.
So that's not what is happening when you Deploy from Source? Instead you get pre compiled files that you simply copy to the needed locations (through a script I assume) and then run the installer (basically something that helps you run configure the app?
So what is it called when you really do have to download the actual C code and compile before deploying?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
Agent Based backups defeat the purpose of a virtualized infrastructure.
I see both sides of that coin.
-
@JaredBusch This is the best sentence about agent solutions I ever heard.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
No, you have to download them first.
Consider WordPress. The full install is literally just copying it into place. There isn't even the Windows notion of needing to double click!
So if copying is building. What would the Windows world be? What is double the effort of building?
