I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Take your closed mind and GTFO. If you cannot think and have a discussion instead of bash on something with no logic, I have no desire to talk to you.
You and @Obsolesce (or anybody else) haven't listed a single benefit of Hyper-V over other hypervisors. You should probably reread the OP. I'm plenty receptive... but so far there is nothing to receive.
I listed one issue I have with it, and you guys get all butt hurt and try to backpedal saying that it's not really a problem when in fact it's stupidest fucking thing ever. You are constantly recommending it and @IRJ asked why, I'm wondering why too.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
You and @Obsolesce (or anybody else) haven't listed a single benefit of Hyper-V over other hypervisors.
Plenty of benefits have been listed. Pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes...
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Plenty of benefits have been listed. Pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes...
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's extremely usable, stable, and has excellent virtualization performance.
Yeah, your wicked solid analysis right here is useful AF. I'm totally going to switch my infrastructure over based on this.
Every modern hypervisor is all of these things, else they wouldn't exist.
JB mentioned something about easy backups. That's about it, that was the only useful post stating any benefits. To which I tried to have a civilized conversation about, but I was ignored, so yeah, I'll just pull my head out of my ass.
-
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Plenty of benefits have been listed. Pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes...
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's extremely usable, stable, and has excellent virtualization performance.Yeah, your wicked solid analysis right here is useful AF. I'm totally going to switch my infrastructure over based on this.
Every modern hypervisor is all of these things, else they wouldn't exist.
JB mentioned something about easy backups. That's about it, that was the only useful post stating any benefits. To which I tried to have a civilized conversation about, but I was ignored, so yeah, I'll just pull my head out of my ass.
Why the hell would you go and change out your whole infrastructure because a hypervisor has a random benefit? They all have benefits, they all have pros and cons.
This isn't a "convince me to switch out KVM with Hyper-V" topic. That you are treating it as such totally explains your attitude in this topic... but is a completely different direction here.
Each hypervisor has it's place. You are treating it as "only use X hypervisor everywhere".
-
to be fair, nobody has listed a single benefit of using HyperV over Xen or ESXi or KVM, other than backup vendor support, which is debatable.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why the hell would you go and change out your whole infrastructure because a hypervisor has a random benefit? They all have benefits, they all have pros and cons.
This isn't a "convince me to switch out KVM with Hyper-V" topic. That you are treating it as such totally explains your attitude in this topic... but is a completely different direction here.
Each hypervisor has it's place. You are treating it as "only use X hypervisor everywhere".Not at all. A huge benefit of Hyper-V, IMO, is if you need vSAN you can use StarWind. I don't need that, so I don't use Hyper-V. If there are other scenarios where it makes the MOST sense to use Hyper-V, I'm not aware of them.
SAM mentions in his video that XS is extremely crippled and lagging behind full blown Xen which would otherwise be a top pick. I would argue that XCP-ng belongs on that short list (above KVM) because of XO. XS/XO is better than Hyper-V in every aspect that matters to me, personally, obviously not everybody and in every circumstance.
XO makes perfect sense for the SMB...
-
This whole topic is about:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
What makes Hyper-V a valid option in production environment?
A TON of valid reasons to use it in a production environment were given.
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
That was not the question being answered here, which is why you aren't finding the answer in this topic.
My answer was completely valid in answering the topic, and wasn't meant to answer the emotional shitfest going on in your head.
-
@obsolesce what about this part of the OP?
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It seems lacking compared to other virtualization options.
you should have just posted SAMs video and saved your incoherent rambling.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
I didn't once bring up KVM, until 7 minutes ago. I asked what makes it better and then you and JB went off on me claiming all sorts of emotional setbacks that dont actually exist. It truly seems that you have a boner for Hyper-V more than anything else, hence your die hard defense of their product.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
I didn't once bring up KVM, until 7 minutes ago. I asked what makes it better and then you and JB went off on me claiming all sorts of emotional setbacks that dont actually exist. It truly seems that you have a boner for Hyper-V more than anything else, hence your die hard defense of their product.
Dude, all of your posts in here from the very beginning were all about comparing to "other hypervisors". Go back up and look.
BUT, this topic was about:
What makes Hyper-V a valid option in production environment?
My answers were for answering the OP. They weren't meant to answer "which hypervisor should bnrstnr run in his environment."
And then the question was asked:
It seems lacking compared to other virtualization options.
To which I also addressed in my first comment, that it's really not lacking.
Then all of your replies after were about you getting all butthurt over Hyper-V being too hard to use.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Also, it's the most compatible solution for Windows-world stuff.
What specifically makes it more compatible than other hypervisors? I've run windows on several hypervisors and can't tell any difference.
I've easily deployed it without AD
-
@momurda thats the only benefit if you are in vendor backup. I am. While I really like kvm I would not recommend it to the average italian sysadmin who unfortunately ignores linux.
-
My 2 cents.
Vmware too expensive if you do not run 15k€ stuff. Still over 15k€ has budget impact.KVM no agentless backup a la altaro/veeam.
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
Would you like freebsd/netbsd/openbsd virtualization? Good luck.
Hyperv simply satisfies my requirements.
Matter of tastes it is really commodity. Like Dell vs HPE.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
How could xcp-ng not be stable when it's the same source code as xenserver 7.4?
That makes no sense. -
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
How about when you want to virtualize the AD?
-
@pete-s said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@matteo-nunziati said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
How could xcp-ng not be stable when it's the same source code as xenserver 7.4?
That makes no sense.They patch the source of a number of xenserver components. Btw my fault it is not xen per se it is xenserver. No one in smb uses xen outside of xenserver+xoa
-
@pete-s said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
How about when you want to virtualize the AD?
You virtualize it and then join the hypervisor. Sort of hyperconverged stuff.
-
@obsolesce whatever bro. You apparently don’t know how to read. I called you out on your bullshit statement that it’s just as easy to deploy (no idea your actual wording, replying from phone) as other hypervisors then in turned into a pissing match because I insulted your precious Hyper-V. You’re an asshole, get over yourself.
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Is there something with Windows licensing that makes attractive?
No hypervisor can have any effect on Windows licensing. Windows licenses by "virtual" and knowledge of what hypervisor is involved is never needed.
