Managing Hyper-V
-
Because Microsoft has a long history of undercutting their ecosystem by...
- Breaking API's on purpose to sabotage people (Novel admins still hold a grudge).
- Competing with partners.
- Locking out partner ecosystems (Azure/Azure Stack freezes out backup providers that don't run in guest VM agents).
- Screwing with partners and customers by changing PnP to crazy pants stuff (See VDI licensing that caused MVP's to quit the program, Azure Stack pricing that will FORCE opex pricing even for private cloud deployments with your own hardware). It's like they watched VMware with vRAM and said "hold my beer".
- Killing products that support the SMB space in ham-fisted ways.
- Their slow attempt to break Skype and force me to use S4B that I'm still annoyed with
- Creating products that need 3rd party ecosystems with unique requirements for hardware/software (Storage Spaces) then abandoning that product (Storage Spaces Direct abandonment of Shared SAS backplane).
- Complete lack of quality control on the ecosystem. a 5 pack of American Light beer and a back rub will get your drivers signed.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Managing Hyper-V:
Because Microsoft has a long history of undercutting their ecosystem by...
What's funny is, so often they just drive people away. They've made me, without owning an XBOX for years, truly hate the XBox and all MS gaming, uninstall Skype from everywhere and totally ignore S4B (do they still offer that, Teams replaced it!)
What's shocking is that anyone keeps going to them. Even when they do things well, it's only so well. I mean Server 2016 is solid, but... is that enough? I can never find a good time to use it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
What's funny is, so often they just drive people away. They've made me, without owning an XBOX for years, truly hate the XBox and all MS gaming, uninstall Skype from everywhere and totally ignore S4B (do they still offer that, Teams replaced it!)
Teams didn't replace S4B. Teams is a Slack Competitor. S4B never had a functioning multi-user chat.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Managing Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
What's funny is, so often they just drive people away. They've made me, without owning an XBOX for years, truly hate the XBox and all MS gaming, uninstall Skype from everywhere and totally ignore S4B (do they still offer that, Teams replaced it!)
Teams didn't replace S4B. Teams is a Slack Competitor. S4B never had a functioning multi-user chat.
It did, they just didn't allow us to use it in O365. I used to use it all the time.
-
Turns out, WebVirtMgr was too good to be true. I couldn't get it working on Fedora 26 or Fedora 25. Hours wasted.
I looked at Proxmox, but that's a Debian "appliance". I'm not using Debian in enterprise and don't want to. No time wasted, didn't bother.
oVirt wouldn't even install on Fedora 26 or 25. Apparently it's built for Fedora 24, I'm not going there. Even then, it doesn't seem like it would install. Time wasted trying to get it working. Packages were updated as of yesterday, so I was thinking they would work. I was wrong.
Briefly looked into Scale... I don't see any package or rpm to install. They want you to use an appliance or something. Not interested.
So much non-working stuff. There were others, but not for enterprise Linux such as RHEL/Fedora based. Everyone tries out their projects, and just abandons them, or they make it so hard to install and it's just insanely unstable.
I'd rather it be like the Windows ecosystem... where it either works great and has great support, even free versions, (StarWind for example), or it simply doesn't exist.
Moving on, I did find Kimchi. I don't remember if that was mentioned in this thread, if so, thank you... but I found it mentioned somewhere on the net.
Kimchi... easy to install, webpage up and working out-of-box if you know what I mean. I don't know if it "technically works" because I'm testing it on Fedora 25 that is a VM itself... but at least I am able to log in to the web page, and see a nice what-seems-to-be-working interface:
Well... it was working. I just went to grab a screenshot to show how great it was (what was I thinking?).. but now this:
I may be able to get it working better on a fresh install, so I won't dismiss it yet... but still, no viable options on Linux for web-based VM management / console access either.
It may be financially better to install Hyper-V (free) and pay for 5nine... labor costs a lot to mess with all this non-working and non-applicable stuff.
-
@Tim_G said in Managing Hyper-V:
Turns out, WebVirtMgr was too good to be true. I couldn't get it working on Fedora 26 or Fedora 25. Hours wasted.
I looked at Proxmox, but that's a Debian "appliance". I'm not using Debian in enterprise and don't want to. No time wasted, didn't bother.
oVirt wouldn't even install on Fedora 26 or 25. Apparently it's built for Fedora 24, I'm not going there. Even then, it doesn't seem like it would install. Time wasted trying to get it working. Packages were updated as of yesterday, so I was thinking they would work. I was wrong.
Briefly looked into Scale... I don't see any package or rpm to install. They want you to use an appliance or something. Not interested.
So much non-working stuff. There were others, but not for enterprise Linux such as RHEL/Fedora based. Everyone tries out their projects, and just abandons them, or they make it so hard to install and it's just insanely unstable.
I'd rather it be like the Windows ecosystem... where it either works great and has great support, even free versions, (StarWind for example), or it simply doesn't exist.
Moving on, I did find Kimchi. I don't remember if that was mentioned in this thread, if so, thank you... but I found it mentioned somewhere on the net.
Kimchi... easy to install, webpage up and working out-of-box if you know what I mean. I don't know if it "technically works" because I'm testing it on Fedora 25 that is a VM itself... but at least I am able to log in to the web page, and see a nice what-seems-to-be-working interface:
Well... it was working. I just went to grab a screenshot to show how great it was (what was I thinking?).. but now this:
I may be able to get it working better on a fresh install, so I won't dismiss it yet... but still, no viable options on Linux for web-based VM management / console access either.
It may be financially better to install Hyper-V (free) and pay for 5nine... labor costs a lot to mess with all this non-working and non-applicable stuff.
At $600 one time fee for vSphere essentials starts to sound real nice about now also. He'll even SCCM-VMM at ~8K isn't awful compared to something that MIGHT work on your OS today but not survive an upgrade.
It's kinda bizarre because enterprises with large scale pay for managemnt tools (and are better positioned to write their own/script stuff). SMBs where they lack the in house bench and depth to operalize free are the ones always trying it. Now to be fair enterprises getting 80% off because of their scale, and they are better poised to leverage some features do shift the value to running comedical software.
Im curious why you don't like appliances?
As a consultant when I saw a solo SMB admin wasting 60% of his time messing with stuff that should have been taking up 2% it was hard to Disagree with the management decision to replace him with a MSP.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Managing Hyper-V:
At $600 one time fee for vSphere essentials starts to sound real nice about now also. He'll even SCCM-VMM at ~8K isn't awful compared to something that MIGHT work on your OS today but not survive an upgrade.
The idea was to find something for free, as in this thread Linux and KVM were being very highly praised on having so many great viable free options for web-based VM management and console access... and where Microsoft was being put down for not having this.
I have found it to be the opposite, actually... or nearly the same. If you want to spend money, Microsoft and Linux both have what seem like great software available to remotely manage your VMs. If you want free options, almost nothing exists for Hyper-V, and the free options available for Linux are pretty much non-starters unless you go Debian-based or use outdated Linux distros.
@John-Nicholson said in Managing Hyper-V:
As a consultant when I saw a solo SMB admin wasting 60% of his time messing with stuff that should have been taking up 2% it was hard to Disagree with the management decision to replace him with a MSP.
It's Saturday, I don't work on Saturdays. I'm trying this stuff on my own time, in my own lab for "fun". I enjoy this stuff as a hobby in addition to doing it for work. I wanted to see how usable it is and whether or not it would fit in a circumstance that a VM needs to run on KVM and not Hyper-V. But I agree, this kind of stuff should only take up 2% of your time... if it takes more, it's a non-starter... which is where most Linux software projects (such as finding web-based KVM management) seems to lead.
-
oVirt should be run on CentOS. It's the upstream for RHEV.
Mist.io also does KVM management.
I don't use web interfaces for KVM. Either CLI or virt-Manager through SSH.
-
@Tim_G said in Managing Hyper-V:
Turns out, WebVirtMgr was too good to be true. I couldn't get it working on Fedora 26 or Fedora 25. Hours wasted.
Tried installing WebVirtMgr too...I also gave up
I looked at Proxmox, but that's a Debian "appliance". I'm not using Debian in enterprise and don't want to. No time wasted, didn't bother.
oVirt wouldn't even install on Fedora 26 or 25. Apparently it's built for Fedora 24, I'm not going there. Even then, it doesn't seem like it would install. Time wasted trying to get it working. Packages were updated as of yesterday, so I was thinking they would work. I was wrong.
oVirt does work but you need to use the oVirt installer iso (it's based on CentOS 7.x)
What paid options for managing KVM have you found (the interesting looking ones)?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Managing Hyper-V:
@Tim_G said in Managing Hyper-V:
Turns out, WebVirtMgr was too good to be true. I couldn't get it working on Fedora 26 or Fedora 25. Hours wasted.
Tried installing WebVirtMgr too...I also gave up
I looked at Proxmox, but that's a Debian "appliance". I'm not using Debian in enterprise and don't want to. No time wasted, didn't bother.
oVirt wouldn't even install on Fedora 26 or 25. Apparently it's built for Fedora 24, I'm not going there. Even then, it doesn't seem like it would install. Time wasted trying to get it working. Packages were updated as of yesterday, so I was thinking they would work. I was wrong.
oVirt does work but you need to use the oVirt installer iso (it's based on CentOS 7.x)
What paid options for managing KVM have you found (the interesting looking ones)?
Scale is a management interface (and more) for KVM.
-
Eucalyptus is a paid one.
I think ManageIQ (upstream of CloudForms) has a libvirt provider, but I'm not sure how well it works.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
Scale is a management interface (and more) for KVM.
Can Scale (the interface) be used to manage anything that doesn't involve Scale (the hardware)?
-
@FATeknollogee said in Managing Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
Scale is a management interface (and more) for KVM.
Can Scale (the interface) be used to manage anything that doesn't involve Scale (the hardware)?
Not that I'm aware of. The Scale interface only runs and works on the Scale systems.
-
-
@FATeknollogee said in Managing Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
Scale is a management interface (and more) for KVM.
Can Scale (the interface) be used to manage anything that doesn't involve Scale (the hardware)?
No, it's appliances only. The KVM is included in the appliance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
@stacksofplates said in Managing Hyper-V:
Eucalyptus is a paid one.
It's free, too. Or was.
Ah I didn't realize that.
I thought it was the HPE one but that's something else.
-
Well that's confusing. There is two Eucalyptus products. One from HPE and one from DXC. That's why I thought it was paid only, I didn't realize there was another one.
-
Ah looks like HPE bought it and then discontinued development? Idk
-
@stacksofplates said in Managing Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller said in Managing Hyper-V:
@stacksofplates said in Managing Hyper-V:
Eucalyptus is a paid one.
It's free, too. Or was.
Ah I didn't realize that.
I thought it was the HPE one but that's something else.
It was an open source cloud project around 2003. It was a clone of AWS (which came out in 2002.) it was the first private cloud project.
-
@stacksofplates said in Managing Hyper-V:
Ah looks like HPE bought it and then discontinued development? Idk
Argh. Not surprising. Really with OpenStack, it didn't make much sense after that.
