When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Operational reasons. I can throw a rock and hit someone who knows how to manage ESXi and vSphere.
This I consider a negative. This is the Windows support problem. It's impossible to tell who actually knows Windows or VMware from someone who say it run once because using the GUI and tools and Googling things make it so easy for anyone to bluff long enough to cause a lot of damage.
This is why we find it so easy to find Linux support even though the pool is so much smaller. There isn't the insane chaff to wheat ratio!
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Where did I say 100% uptime? I didn't. 12 VMs is small. Everywhere has downtime, yes, but this isn't complex and for IIS and SQL Server etc... this is not an unreasonable setup. Not hard to manage or design either. I'm shocked y'all think its suck a crazy setup.
Why I like having hypervisor clusters even for app clusters is it let me do host maintenance in the middle of the day when resources are cheap vs at night where they are expensive (overtime pay, comp time, or just burning out my operations staff).
This is what offshoring is for
Do maintenance with the least cost and least impact.And I've seen this logic being down trading systems when vMotion failed during the day. It's a risk that people often overlook. In this particular case the people in question knew they weren't allowed to do it and thought that no one would know because it was VMware. We asked for them to be fired because of it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson I agree, there are reasons to need these kinds of systems, but they are far and few in between.
The argument being made here by @Jimmy9008 is I can do it on something other than ESXi, which sure he can do so. But its added complexity for little gain.
No, there is NO added complexity. None. that's where you are confused.
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
In the words of @Lost_Signal773, HA is something you do and not something you buy.
That's from @John-Nicholson
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
There's also storage vMotion, which allows you to move the VM files from one storage device to another with no downtime (VM does not change hosts in this case). There is also enhanced vMotion, which allows you to move a VM from one host to another (CPU and RAM) and also move its actual files also (from one storage device to another).
That's a totally different thing, similar name, not similar in what it is. In no way a "level" of vMotion and not shared in utility or mechanism. And also available free with competing products.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
In the words of @Lost_Signal773, HA is something you do and not something you buy.
That's from @John-Nicholson
Edited my post above
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
With Hyper-V I must have a license of Windows.
No you do not, not at all. Hyper-V is 100% free, it has no ties to Windows whatsoever.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/5272/somethings-you-need-to-know-about-hyper-v
This is the top myth about Hyper-V, we must average debunking it two or more times a day on SW.
-
@Tim_G said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Tim_G It's free like a puppy
VMware is free like a kitten
A crippled kitten with distemper.
-
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It's not lazy it's considering licensing of application stuff, as well as operational costs. Back in the day Hypervisor HA was considered exotic and expensive (and it often was). Now it's mundane (tons of ops people know how to deploy/support it), ....
Is that really true? So many people use it without understanding it. The "using it because it seems easy" mindset makes for a support nightmare, similar to what Windows faces with their ecosystem. So many things are done incorrectly because it seems like you need to knowledge to do it. Then everything blows up.
In many ways, IT being too easy makes it dangerous in the real world.
-
@Tim_G said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Tim_G I'll take it. My dog requires 3 walks a day, and play time. My cats I had could be ignored for a week or more without much effort given enough food/water and fresh litter was left out.
True, but they don't do anything useful without an insane amount of training, time, and money ^_^
And the last time (admittedly some time ago) that we hired VMware training, the class trained the VMware staffer because Vmware didn't know its own product. I've had a certain lack of faith in it ever since Xen and Zones folks were the ones teaching VMware how to use its own software to the "expert" that VMware had on staff.
I'm sure Vmware has loads of great people, but even Vmware stuggled to find what I'd call competent users internally whereas finding people who knew Xen was pretty easy (and still is.)
-
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
The cost of the solution isn't expensive if your business requires those features.
example?
Fault Tolerance with vendor support for it. Technically not limited to Vmware, but essentially limited to it. I believe Suse with Xen is the only other vendor who offers OEM vendor support for that.
Agree 100%. It is one of the cheapest supported solutions. Issue is if you can afford it! Usually not here.
Of course exceptions can be around. But are exceptions imho in the small business.Not sure it is the cheapest. Compare to Red Hat, I bet RH is cheaper. I've not compared, I'm just guessing.
-
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
-
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
Yeah, super weird. We kept saying "why would we do this garbage when we can do it way better with Vmware?" They had no clue what Vmware was or that they were building joke hardware for another era.
-
Love the replies, I have nothing to contribute because the discussion has transcended far beyond my lack of expertise lol
Definitely appears to be a small space where it's beneficial, but for 99% of us the free ones are preferred and most will never see a scenario where it's truly needed
-
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
What was the statement to which that was a response? LOL
-
@scottalanmiller Redhat Costs more than that just to support a single server. (Seriously, get a quote). Even SuSE isn't that cheap. $1200 for 3 x 2 socket servers 24/7 support is wildly cheap for a hypervisor (Note I will give credit to Redhat and SuSE is they will also provide support for Linux as an OS for VM's with their higher support bundles so that will get you some OS support which is damn nice, but even then more people run RedHat and SuSE on ESXi than KVM rather than pay the premium to the linux vendors.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@John-Nicholson said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller By this logic you should always use DB2 over Microsoft SQL, zOS over Linux or Windows, ARM or Power Processors over X86 and Juniper over... Well anything that isn't so damn weird and complicated as JuneOS.
IT naturally gravitates to commodity platforms for general purpose non-speciality stuff.
What was the statement to which that was a response? LOL
Windows Support issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@NetworkNerd said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@stacksofplates said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
No it needs shared storage. Either vSAN or iSCSI or NFS. Every hypervisor I've seen can do it with shared storage. Even KVM has built in mechanisms to live migrate between two live hosts with shared storage.
So VMWare has FT now and can do shared nothing with 4 VMs but is really resource heavy. @John-Nicholson set me straight.
Except for the VMs, they are totally shared. It's the same kind of overhead that you get in mainframes or NEC's ridiculous two node piece of crap.
Oh, NEC - that was one weird night at SpiceCorps.
Yeah, super weird. We kept saying "why would we do this garbage when we can do it way better with Vmware?" They had no clue what Vmware was or that they were building joke hardware for another era.
I get that they were trying to build hardware FT to try and compete with VMware FT, but...they failed big time.
