I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
What are they using?
MS uses MS virtualization for Azure, it just isn't Hyper-V. It's Azure (yes, the name is redundant.) It's very, very related to Hyper-V, but not exactly Hyper-V. That much, AFAIK, is public and correct. There are things not known about it, but my understanding is that it is a very close cousin to Hyper-V with some tweaks for the specific environment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
What are they using?
MS uses MS virtualization for Azure, it just isn't Hyper-V. It's Azure (yes, the name is redundant.) It's very, very related to Hyper-V, but not exactly Hyper-V. That much, AFAIK, is public and correct. There are things not known about it, but my understanding is that it is a very close cousin to Hyper-V with some tweaks for the specific environment.
I know that & like you said it's been public knowledge for years.
I asked the question 'coz he stated it as fact, that Msft wasn't using Hyper-V in Azure.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
Sometimes I use VMWare, sometimes Hyper-V, sometimes KVM... soon xcp-ng.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
We are moving to it across the board for small clients - lower cost to maintain, fewer skills or third party tools needed. Specifically good for smaller clients without the skill sets and/or extra tools necessary to use Hyper-V.
What...no love for XCP-ng?
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
You’re an asshole, get over yourself.
Not my intention at all, I don't mean to come off that way.
I try to stick to facts, and leave emotion out of it.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
Sweet, it’s awesome that you love KVM. For the love of god, I’m not emotional about the damn thing. I simply stated that there is so much negativity towards Microsoft in IT communities, yet Hyper-V gets a free pass. Then you guys misconstrued and ran with it never looking back. I listed a huge plus to Huper-v that was completely overlooked while you were clowning about emotions. My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it. It’s harder to manage, even after AD or Workgroup credentials are set. I don’t like it, but I understand it has it’s place, which I already stated and was clearly ignored about. You’ve been fighting me tooth and nail about the damn authentication, I’m simply stating that it is not as easy as the other options... that’s it
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Wow so you cant use Hyper-V without a domain? Did it always use to be that way? I seem to think it didn't matter at some point?
Of course you can. But you have to do a few extra things manually with setting up trusts and delegation rights. There is a lot of confusion on this and a lot of misinformation out there.
I do totally agree that Microsoft screwed up by not making this simpler.
I guess if you aren't using AD, you probably aren't too fond of MS and are unlikely to use Hyper-V.
I dont' agree here. With the liking MS = using AD assumption. This just isn't the case. If you are a hard core MS fanboi and trust them up the wazoo... you still only use AD some of the time. No amount of loving or trusting MS makes you always use AD. MS doesn't recommend AD in very small shops, highly disparate shops, or in nearly any case where AzureAD can be used instead. MS has alternatives that they promote in those cases.
Using AD isn't an MS vs not-MS discussion. MS is not synonymous with AD. In reality, there are way more AD fans out there than MS fans. The number of people who choose AD because of an emotional reason seems way higher than the number of people that love MS emotionally.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
I haven’t kept up with the recent stuff about them recommending kvm. That’s awesome, I just knew there was a huge starwind/hyper-v following
-
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
We are moving to it across the board for small clients - lower cost to maintain, fewer skills or third party tools needed. Specifically good for smaller clients without the skill sets and/or extra tools necessary to use Hyper-V.
What...no love for XCP-ng?
No, their support model insanity makes me fear for their long term stability. It's a wonderful idea, but came too late and with no sensible support options. KVM has solid backing, and solid support options.
XCP-NG is fine, but at this point, what benefit is it bringing over KVM? KVM used to be a pain to deploy, but no longer. KVM has the momentum, no matter how much I like Xen fundamentally. Investing in it for a new deployment just isn't something I see a likely ability to create a value proposition for.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Lmao, so I was wrong. I was trying to help Hyper-V, but damnit I should have known there were better solutions
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Lmao, so I was wrong. I was trying to help Hyper-V, but damnit I should have known there were better solutions
They started there, so there was a time that that was true. But they moved their focus onto KVM because they saw it as the more mature choice.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Lmao, so I was wrong. I was trying to help Hyper-V, but damnit I should have known there were better solutions
There are better solutions, like KVM. But again, this was about what makes Hyper-V production worthy. Not about which hypervisor is better. That's why I was keeping on about Hyper-V.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
KVM used to be a pain to deploy, but no longer. KVM has the momentum, no matter how much I like Xen fundamentally. Investing in it for a new deployment just isn't something I see a likely ability to create a value proposition for.
Maybe like 10 years ago. I've been using it since 2013 or so and it's always been easy to deploy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
-
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
KVM used to be a pain to deploy, but no longer. KVM has the momentum, no matter how much I like Xen fundamentally. Investing in it for a new deployment just isn't something I see a likely ability to create a value proposition for.
Maybe like 10 years ago. I've been using it since 2013 or so and it's always been easy to deploy.
Yeah, like a decade ago.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Lmao, so I was wrong. I was trying to help Hyper-V, but damnit I should have known there were better solutions
There are better solutions, like KVM. But again, this was about what makes Hyper-V production worthy. Not about which hypervisor is better. That's why I was keeping on about Hyper-V.
Well, to be fair, if all other offerings sucked, Hyper-V would be amazing. Production ready, here, is really all by comparison to what else is on the market. In absolute terms, all available Type 1 hypervisors are better than physical installs and are therefore production ready if we don't consider the current state of the alternative available solutions.
So the question as to what makes Hyper-V good or bad is one purely of its comparison to the alternatives.
-
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
Same document: "Right now we are releasing the new Linux version, compatible with all industry-standard hypervisors: Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware ESXi, Xen and KVM. It includes Web Management Console, so you can use any convenient HTML5-capable browser to check and configure your infrastructure."
Maybe they are revamping the VSA and the VSA is about to be the legacy version just for VMware and the new stuff is for everything.
