Open Source Hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
XAPI is a fully Citrix stuff. I do not think that, if Citrix will drop XAPI, anyone will jump in.
Actually XAPI is made by the Linux Foundation (with sponsorship from Citrix), not by Citrix themselves. It is owned by Xen, as a part of Linux, not be Citrix. XAPI is the base for XCP which Citrix then uses to make XenServer. XAPI is already out of Citrix' hands and developed separately.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
XAPI is so non standard wrt Xen Project source code, that no one is packaging it and current Citrix efforts are focused only on Centos because they use it for Dom 0.
On their wiki they say that the package for Ubuntu. Maybe this has changed, but given the nature of XCP and XAPI, would you want it anywhere but CentOS? Is this in any way a negative?
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
- point 3: really anyone cares to download hyper-V server from MS website rather than get KVM/Xen from friend's usb pen?
This may sound silly, but it is a point of protection. Any sensible business should be very concerned about this. Like before, this is about protection to ensure that you are safe, not something you use every day.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
- point 4: this is connected to point 2: how many non corporate (Red Hat/Qumranet and Citrix) related commits have been merged in the main code of KVM/libvirt or XAPI?
Again, protection comes from what can be done, not what is done. It's like asking how many times has your bullet proof vest saved you? We hope, none. But if you ever get shot, you'll be glad that decades of not getting shot didn't convince you to go into battle without proper protection.
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
XAPI is a fully Citrix stuff. I do not think that, if Citrix will drop XAPI, anyone will jump in.
Actually XAPI is made by the Linux Foundation (with sponsorship from Citrix), not by Citrix themselves. It is owned by Xen, as a part of Linux, not be Citrix. XAPI is the base for XCP which Citrix then uses to make XenServer. XAPI is already out of Citrix' hands and developed separately.
I agree with that. At the lest Citrix event I attend, they couldn't care less about XenServer and reccommend VMware.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
I mean that while 2 of the main type-1 hypervisors are open source in the form, I think that none of them is currently really open in the facts as no developement community is there. Just a user community. But this is also true for Hyper-V.
I'm not sure what you mean. Just become commits come from only companies does not in any way take away from them being open. There are development communities. Companies like IBM and Red Hat have both internal communities that are extremely important, as well as inter-corporation communities. If someone becomes a heavy commiter to KVM, it is likely that one of these big companies will hire them to ensure the continued development. But it sounds like you see that commitment and protection and inherently diminishing the value?
Open source is not about thousands of individuals in basements equally turning out a few lines of code to come together to a project. It's about openness, freedom, end user protection, idea sharing, safety, gift economy, human development and so forth. I don't see anything negative or concerning here at all. This is exactly how the majority of healthy, open, free software projects would be expected to be when everything is exactly as it should be.
-
@Francesco-Provino said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
XAPI is a fully Citrix stuff. I do not think that, if Citrix will drop XAPI, anyone will jump in.
Actually XAPI is made by the Linux Foundation (with sponsorship from Citrix), not by Citrix themselves. It is owned by Xen, as a part of Linux, not be Citrix. XAPI is the base for XCP which Citrix then uses to make XenServer. XAPI is already out of Citrix' hands and developed separately.
I agree with that. At the lest Citrix event I attend, they couldn't care less about XenServer and reccommend VMware.
Yes, Citrix gave up on that long ago.
-
I worked with Citrix to get stuff certified on KVM, they were thrilled to have the work done.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Of course we have both KVM and Xen but let think about them a little more...
And BHyve
type-2?
No, type 1.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
1 The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2 The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3 The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
4 The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.So from this...
Point 1: I think this is huge and alone provides enough value to make any further discussion academic. No matter how little other points matter, this one is so big that it defines the importance to all businesses of every size and type.
Point 2: The freedom and protection that this brings are important regardless of if we do it internally or not. that we can or that others can provides huge value and protection to even the smallest business.
Point 3: This is really just an aspect of point 1, but it matters because it's what keeps us from losing access to what already exists.
Point 4: This is big because it encourages more contributions from more companies in the future and keeps since entities from being able to take code in a direction that does not make sense for the greater good. This protection helps us every day, but we don't see it, because it "just works." -
@matteo-nunziati Xen can be fully used without XAPI, that are also an OSS project.
XenServer is the Xen package with XAPI, but any enterprise distro provide Xen WITHOUTH XAPI, namely SuSe and Ubuntu. You can use it effectively with libvirt or the xl toolstack.At the moment I don't see any risk associated with Xen being dropped by anyone, because it's the widely used hypervisor in the world. Almost any public cloud use that. Just the fact that AWS is built on Xen it's a guarantee that it cannot became abandonware in any way. Amazon alone could support the entire Xen development with 0.1% the revenues from the AWS cloud. They have all the interest in maintain Xen healthy.
-
An example of Point 4 working for us is LibreOffice. Remember when it was just OpenOffice and stagnating? Point 4 is what granted all of us the protection that the project would continue and thrive, which it did. Anyone using LibreOffice is a recipient of point 4 from a product that 15 years ago no one would have guessed would ever need that kind of protection.
-
@Francesco-Provino said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati Xen can be fully used without XAPI, that are also an OSS project.
XenServer is the Xen package with XAPI, but any enterprise distro provide Xen WITHOUTH XAPI, namely SuSe and Ubuntu. You can use it effectively with libvirt or the xl toolstack.At the moment I don't see any risk associated with Xen being dropped by anyone, because it's the widely used hypervisor in the world. Almost any public cloud use that. Just the fact that AWS is built on Xen it's a guarantee that it cannot became abandonware in any way. Amazon alone could support the entire Xen development with 0.1% the revenues from the AWS cloud. They have all the interest in maintain Xen healthy.
And IBM's SoftLayer and Rackspace (which was important until this morning) are both Xen as well. Neither is on par with Amazon, but both are large enough to support it without any other vendors involved.
And OpenStack is heavily involved with Xen (sans XAPI). Not as much as with KVM today, but is a major player in the private cloud space with Xen.
-
@matteo-nunziati here is a Xen wiki link about the Xen toolstack that you can use to manage Xen.
-
Don't forget that things like the open source and multi-vendor approach to KVM is what allows us to have stuff like Scale HC3, as well!
-
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Of course we have both KVM and Xen but let think about them a little more...
And BHyve
type-2?
No, type 1.
ok, type 1 for everyone but some of their presentations back in 2012 X-D! They classify KVM as type-2 too...
-
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@scottalanmiller said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
@matteo-nunziati said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Of course we have both KVM and Xen but let think about them a little more...
And BHyve
type-2?
No, type 1.
ok, type 1 for everyone but some of their presentations back in 2012 X-D! They classify KVM as type-2 too...
Whose presentations?
-
Whenever Xen is questioned, why only bring Amazon? Are there any SMB examples that is using Xen or XenServer without a doubt?
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
As for KVM, I believe there are more community backing than Xen.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
Whenever Xen is questioned, why only bring Amazon? Are there any SMB examples that is using Xen or XenServer without a doubt?
Can you name SMB examples of anything? We all know that they are out there, but SMB aren't useful examples for anything. It's the nature of the SMB. I mean we know that there are a lot of Xen users here in ML, how many examples do you need?
We know that SMB does all kinds of things, we see them all of the time. But SMB examples are dangerous for lots of reasons. For one, they are often unknown (we don't have any reason to think that what they do is good.) For another, they are not public (no one talks about what they do.)
Even if no SMB uses Xen, doesn't mean that it's bad, only that SMBs aren't doing it. Amazon is an important example here because no single SMB is going to fund any project like this, but Amazon will. Amazon is also important because they run the fastest most secure environment on the planet (according to the CIA), as well as the largest. Their expertise carries rather significant value. As does their cost analysis.
We can learn a lot from one Amazon that we can't learn from ten thousand SMBs.
-
@black3dynamite said in open source hypervisors: do we really have them? do we really need them?:
If it wasn't for XenSever, I could care less about using Xen.
Why is that? My experience is mostly the opposite, only found XS interesting recently and the maintenance of it made me essentially not care anymore. It's Xen that is really interesting. It's more advanced and has some VMware level features, like full fault tolerance that are removed in XS.
