XenServer 7.3 Release
-
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@momurda said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Most of the things they removed are meh, but Storage Motion, come on.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous. These are key features that everyone has for free. If you don't have stuff like this, you aren't even trying today.
And by everyone - you now mean Hyper-V and KVM - who, if anyone, else?
The other two players I know of (ESXi and XS) don't have it free.
Well if you look at hypervisors, rather than resulting products, then all the "in the game" players have it... KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V. Only ESXi lacks it, and we don't consider them a viable short lister.
And how viable is Xen for the SMB to use?
Totally viable, what's the concern? It's free, it's simple last I looked. Just install openSuse Leap and away you go. There is even a GUI for deploying it.
Then why the need for XS?
There is no need for it. Who said we needed it?
-
@dustinb3403 said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@momurda said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Most of the things they removed are meh, but Storage Motion, come on.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous. These are key features that everyone has for free. If you don't have stuff like this, you aren't even trying today.
And by everyone - you now mean Hyper-V and KVM - who, if anyone, else?
The other two players I know of (ESXi and XS) don't have it free.
Well if you look at hypervisors, rather than resulting products, then all the "in the game" players have it... KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V. Only ESXi lacks it, and we don't consider them a viable short lister.
And how viable is Xen for the SMB to use?
Totally viable, what's the concern? It's free, it's simple last I looked. Just install openSuse Leap and away you go. There is even a GUI for deploying it.
Then why the need for XS?
@Dashrender you're missing that XenServer has XAPI, which literally turns Xen into XenServer.
Without XAPI tool set, you're just operating Xen, on CentOS, Ubuntu so on and so on. It's the tool set that has the value. Not the provider of the tool set.
Is it? What good does XAPI really do? Other than enable XO, XAPI is pretty useless to the end users.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dustinb3403 said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@momurda said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Most of the things they removed are meh, but Storage Motion, come on.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous. These are key features that everyone has for free. If you don't have stuff like this, you aren't even trying today.
And by everyone - you now mean Hyper-V and KVM - who, if anyone, else?
The other two players I know of (ESXi and XS) don't have it free.
Well if you look at hypervisors, rather than resulting products, then all the "in the game" players have it... KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V. Only ESXi lacks it, and we don't consider them a viable short lister.
And how viable is Xen for the SMB to use?
Totally viable, what's the concern? It's free, it's simple last I looked. Just install openSuse Leap and away you go. There is even a GUI for deploying it.
Then why the need for XS?
@Dashrender you're missing that XenServer has XAPI, which literally turns Xen into XenServer.
Without XAPI tool set, you're just operating Xen, on CentOS, Ubuntu so on and so on. It's the tool set that has the value. Not the provider of the tool set.
Is it? What good does XAPI really do? Other than enable XO, XAPI is pretty useless to the end users.
. . .
-
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dustinb3403 said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@momurda said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Most of the things they removed are meh, but Storage Motion, come on.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous. These are key features that everyone has for free. If you don't have stuff like this, you aren't even trying today.
And by everyone - you now mean Hyper-V and KVM - who, if anyone, else?
The other two players I know of (ESXi and XS) don't have it free.
Well if you look at hypervisors, rather than resulting products, then all the "in the game" players have it... KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V. Only ESXi lacks it, and we don't consider them a viable short lister.
And how viable is Xen for the SMB to use?
Totally viable, what's the concern? It's free, it's simple last I looked. Just install openSuse Leap and away you go. There is even a GUI for deploying it.
Then why the need for XS?
@Dashrender you're missing that XenServer has XAPI, which literally turns Xen into XenServer.
Without XAPI tool set, you're just operating Xen, on CentOS, Ubuntu so on and so on. It's the tool set that has the value. Not the provider of the tool set.
Is it? What good does XAPI really do? Other than enable XO, XAPI is pretty useless to the end users.
Then why did XS have value at all? Why didn't people just keep using Xen and oVirt, etc?
-
And they still only support ext3 and vhd.
-
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Then why did XS have value at all? Why didn't people just keep using Xen and oVirt, etc?
Why do people talk about Citrix like it's the best thing since sliced bread?
There's always been a "ZFS" cult like following when it comes to Citrix, why...who knows!
-
@fateknollogee said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Then why did XS have value at all? Why didn't people just keep using Xen and oVirt, etc?
Why do people talk about Citrix like it's the best thing since sliced bread?
There's always been a "ZFS" cult like following when it comes to Citrix, why...who knows!
Yeah, they are a weird company. XenApp isn't terrible but... meh.
-
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dustinb3403 said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@momurda said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
Most of the things they removed are meh, but Storage Motion, come on.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous. These are key features that everyone has for free. If you don't have stuff like this, you aren't even trying today.
And by everyone - you now mean Hyper-V and KVM - who, if anyone, else?
The other two players I know of (ESXi and XS) don't have it free.
Well if you look at hypervisors, rather than resulting products, then all the "in the game" players have it... KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V. Only ESXi lacks it, and we don't consider them a viable short lister.
And how viable is Xen for the SMB to use?
Totally viable, what's the concern? It's free, it's simple last I looked. Just install openSuse Leap and away you go. There is even a GUI for deploying it.
Then why the need for XS?
@Dashrender you're missing that XenServer has XAPI, which literally turns Xen into XenServer.
Without XAPI tool set, you're just operating Xen, on CentOS, Ubuntu so on and so on. It's the tool set that has the value. Not the provider of the tool set.
Is it? What good does XAPI really do? Other than enable XO, XAPI is pretty useless to the end users.
Then why did XS have value at all? Why didn't people just keep using Xen and oVirt, etc?
Becaue the TINIEST bit of "easier" or "has an interface on Windows" or "isn't officially Linux" is all it takes for the emotional responses to kick in.
-
/sigh
-
I see a big coming back of VMware in the SMB, maybe from deluded cloud customers (lift and shift burned people, mainly).
It's IMHO the obvious choice for non-Linux people.
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.
I'm a Linux guy and I've many KVM hosts in home lab and in the field, but the VMware GUI/CLI are doing very well in the latest release. And there is also the "Veeam factor": 2/3 of KVM threads are about "how to backup KVM guest".Yes, I've always been again "that closed shit", but VMware has a very nice products that is starting to be usable again.
-
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
I see a big coming back of VMware in the SMB, maybe from deluded cloud customers (lift and shift burned people, mainly).
I doubt it, it just keeps moving more and more away from the needs of the SMB.
-
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.Except... at that price it's ridiculous. Maybe in Europe that's seen as a deal. In the US, that's pure insanity. SMBs can't throw around that kind of money. And it doesn't come with ANY support, and it isn't powerful at that price, it's actually quite pathetic. For half that cost, you can hire someone to install something more powerful.
Underpowered, insanely expensive.... where's the selling point relative to the market?
-
@dashrender said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
/sigh
XS was always a crippled Xen product, but with some simple options. But once it stops being as powerful or as simple, or starts to have a questionable future, the scales tip.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.Except... at that price it's ridiculous. Maybe in Europe that's seen as a deal. In the US, that's pure insanity. SMBs can't throw around that kind of money. And it doesn't come with ANY support, and it isn't powerful at that price, it's actually quite pathetic. For half that cost, you can hire someone to install something more powerful.
Underpowered, insanely expensive.... where's the selling point relative to the market?
Where can you hire a sysadmin to install a KVM environment in ONE DAY that has centralized web-based management with advanced automation tools, backup API, stateless installation that fit an usb (no need for endurance on a BOSS card / additional stoarge array) and easy to manage networking across vlans (openvswitch/Linux bridges, I've been there) for 300€/$?
-
@scottalanmiller and don't try to sell me the HyperV stuff, because as you stated some months ago, Windows and it's license is ultimately needed to effectively manage HyperV, so the price is not that far away from VMware :D.
-
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller and don't try to sell me the HyperV stuff, because as you stated some months ago, Windows and it's license is ultimately needed to effectively manage HyperV, so the price is not that far away from VMware :D.
That would only be a valid concern if you hadn't already stated that the situation was for people without Linux experience. If you don't have Windows, and you don't have Linux, what exactly do you need to virtualize?
-
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.Except... at that price it's ridiculous. Maybe in Europe that's seen as a deal. In the US, that's pure insanity. SMBs can't throw around that kind of money. And it doesn't come with ANY support, and it isn't powerful at that price, it's actually quite pathetic. For half that cost, you can hire someone to install something more powerful.
Underpowered, insanely expensive.... where's the selling point relative to the market?
Where can you hire a sysadmin to install a KVM environment in ONE DAY that has centralized web-based management with advanced automation tools, backup API, stateless installation that fit an usb (no need for endurance on a BOSS card / additional stoarge array) and easy to manage networking across vlans (openvswitch/Linux bridges, I've been there) for 300€/$?
None of that matters. What does matter is that for 300€ you can get a better system than Vmware.
Web based management is nice, but not a deal breaker for a small shop, VMware only got that recently anyway. Backup API isn't really good for the SMB, in fact, it might be a bad thing. Stateless installation on USB, what value is there to that? Sure, use it if you have it, but really, who cares... no SMB, that's for sure. And VLANs... those don't belong in an SMB generally.
This stuff sound great, but actually, for half the price, you can probably get a better KVM deployment that isn't chock full of things you shouldn't have but might have deployed only because VMware was so expensive that you felt like you had to.
Plus, if you get VMware for 600€ and can't install KVM yourself, but need all those features... you now have to hire even more expensive support. VMware support will likely cost more than KVM support because "they see you coming."
-
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller and don't try to sell me the HyperV stuff, because as you stated some months ago, Windows and it's license is ultimately needed to effectively manage HyperV, so the price is not that far away from VMware :D.
That would only be a valid concern if you hadn't already stated that the situation was for people without Linux experience. If you don't have Windows, and you don't have Linux, what exactly do you need to virtualize?
Maybe I need to be even more precise: a GOOD KVM implementation requires not only a very good Linux experience but also a broad experience with KVM itself. It's easy to mess up things when you have to do almost everything in a "handmade" way. Remember, I was a fan of KVM before you even consider it for production workloads...
-
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@scottalanmiller said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.Except... at that price it's ridiculous. Maybe in Europe that's seen as a deal. In the US, that's pure insanity. SMBs can't throw around that kind of money. And it doesn't come with ANY support, and it isn't powerful at that price, it's actually quite pathetic. For half that cost, you can hire someone to install something more powerful.
Underpowered, insanely expensive.... where's the selling point relative to the market?
Where can you hire a sysadmin to install a KVM environment in ONE DAY that has centralized web-based management with advanced automation tools, backup API, stateless installation that fit an usb (no need for endurance on a BOSS card / additional stoarge array) and easy to manage networking across vlans (openvswitch/Linux bridges, I've been there) for 300€/$?
None of that matters. What does matter is that for 300€ you can get a better system than Vmware.
Web based management is nice, but not a deal breaker for a small shop, VMware only got that recently anyway. Backup API isn't really good for the SMB, in fact, it might be a bad thing. Stateless installation on USB, what value is there to that? Sure, use it if you have it, but really, who cares... no SMB, that's for sure. And VLANs... those don't belong in an SMB generally.
This stuff sound great, but actually, for half the price, you can probably get a better KVM deployment that isn't chock full of things you shouldn't have but might have deployed only because VMware was so expensive that you felt like you had to.
Plus, if you get VMware for 600€ and can't install KVM yourself, but need all those features... you now have to hire even more expensive support. VMware support will likely cost more than KVM support because "they see you coming."
I've fried SEVERAL USB thumbs with XS. And in small installation you usually don't have a separate array just for the hypervisor or stuff like boot from SAN.
I think any ML user (even ones that aren't familiar with VMware) are able to correctly configure a virtual switch with 10 minutes of messing with the gui or powershell.Now, try that with a standard KVM (CentOS/Fedora) installation.
Maybe it's just me, but the whole MANUAL taking up the bridge / add the NIC / activate the interface / delay the autostart of the VM since everything is up... is not the best part of life, really. No, Linux don't bring up everything in the right order, you have to script it manually and hope that no upgrade broke the compatibility with your script. And yes, you have to integrate it as a systemd unit. There are also the log to configure, of course. I'm able to do that, ok, but it takes months of my time to debug any of those little issue before releasing the whole mess in production.I don't see how backup API can be a downside...
-
@francesco-provino said in XenServer 7.3 Release:
I see a big coming back of VMware in the SMB, maybe from deluded cloud customers (lift and shift burned people, mainly).
It's IMHO the obvious choice for non-Linux people.
It's extremely reliable, powerful, has an incredible ecosystem.
That 600€ of essential license are blessed.
I'm a Linux guy and I've many KVM hosts in home lab and in the field, but the VMware GUI/CLI are doing very well in the latest release. And there is also the "Veeam factor": 2/3 of KVM threads are about "how to backup KVM guest".Yes, I've always been again "that closed shit", but VMware has a very nice products that is starting to be usable again.
I would expect users to use Hyper-V before going with VMware if they a non-Linux users.
