ESX Appliance?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
And @scottalanmiller is back to posting on ML after a brief abcense.
Was playing AoE2 for one game.
Oh sure, be that way...
-
Lol -
@thanksaj said:
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
You are SUPPOSED to run HyperV from SD card exactly like ESXi. It is the same best practice in both cases. You can run from disk in both cases too. The SD card is just a slow SSD in this case, so under the hood the hypervisor doesn't know the difference anyway.
What do you mean by "install to the device?" Every hypervisor is installed to the device, it has to be since type 1 hypervisors are installed on the physical server instead of an OS.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
You still install it to the device though, right? You don't/can't run Hyper-V from a flash drive or SD card like ESXi, right?
You are SUPPOSED to run HyperV from SD card exactly like ESXi. It is the same best practice in both cases. You can run from disk in both cases too. The SD card is just a slow SSD in this case, so under the hood the hypervisor doesn't know the difference anyway.
What do you mean by "install to the device?" Every hypervisor is installed to the device, it has to be since type 1 hypervisors are installed on the physical server instead of an OS.
I meant installed on the system drives/RAID array directly instead of on a flash media source like an SD card or flash drive. My mistake.
-
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
Actually it's just like Xen. Xen and HyperV are the hypervisors, they run on the bare metal. There is no Linux and no Windows involved. They each have a control environment (Xen calls this the Dom0.) In the case of Xen this can be Linux, BSD or Solaris (or anything with the right hooks.) It's flexible. In the case of HyperV it needs Windows there. But in both cases the hypervisor is the hypervisor. There is no Linux and no Windows in the hypervisor at all. Completely separate things.
-
-
@thanksaj said:
Interesting...that is news to me. Sounds like MS is playing catch-up to get to VMware's level in a lot of ways...just my 2¢.
Such as? Most of the things that you are thinking, I feel, are things that HyperV has done since day one (Type 1 hypervisor, run from any media, etc.) The big deals are the high level things and scaling features that really don't matter in the SMB. HyperV is a little behind in the high end enterprise space. But for most customers they are roughly on parity and have been. VMware is a little faster and a little more robust, yes. But overall, very close. XenServer is screaming fast too for certain workloads and KVM for others. Each has their niche, all play well in the biggest, most demanding environments.
Remember that Azure and, by extension, Office 365's hosted environments are all HyperV.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
Actually it's just like Xen. Xen and HyperV are the hypervisors, they run on the bare metal. There is no Linux and no Windows involved. They each have a control environment (Xen calls this the Dom0.) In the case of Xen this can be Linux, BSD or Solaris (or anything with the right hooks.) It's flexible. In the case of HyperV it needs Windows there. But in both cases the hypervisor is the hypervisor. There is no Linux and no Windows in the hypervisor at all. Completely separate things.
I wonder if Microsoft will change this in the future with all of the open source love they have at the moment. Although I kind of doubt it as they are trying to sell the management piece of it.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
Actually it's just like Xen. Xen and HyperV are the hypervisors, they run on the bare metal. There is no Linux and no Windows involved. They each have a control environment (Xen calls this the Dom0.) In the case of Xen this can be Linux, BSD or Solaris (or anything with the right hooks.) It's flexible. In the case of HyperV it needs Windows there. But in both cases the hypervisor is the hypervisor. There is no Linux and no Windows in the hypervisor at all. Completely separate things.
I wonder if Microsoft will change this in the future with all of the open source love they have at the moment. Although I kind of doubt it as they are trying to sell the management piece of it.
You think MS will move Office365 to Xen?
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
Actually it's just like Xen. Xen and HyperV are the hypervisors, they run on the bare metal. There is no Linux and no Windows involved. They each have a control environment (Xen calls this the Dom0.) In the case of Xen this can be Linux, BSD or Solaris (or anything with the right hooks.) It's flexible. In the case of HyperV it needs Windows there. But in both cases the hypervisor is the hypervisor. There is no Linux and no Windows in the hypervisor at all. Completely separate things.
I wonder if Microsoft will change this in the future with all of the open source love they have at the moment. Although I kind of doubt it as they are trying to sell the management piece of it.
You think MS will move Office365 to Xen?
No, I'm wondering if they will opensource the management hooks for Hyper-V so it can be managed by Linux. Like I said probably wouldn't happen but would be cool if it did.
-
@coliver said:
No, I'm wondering if they will opensource the management hooks for Hyper-V so it can be managed by Linux. Like I said probably wouldn't happen but would be cool if it did.
Doubt it.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@milnesy said:
@thanksaj the new core is a hypevisor... it's just running a windows core rather than a linux core.
Actually it's just like Xen. Xen and HyperV are the hypervisors, they run on the bare metal. There is no Linux and no Windows involved. They each have a control environment (Xen calls this the Dom0.) In the case of Xen this can be Linux, BSD or Solaris (or anything with the right hooks.) It's flexible. In the case of HyperV it needs Windows there. But in both cases the hypervisor is the hypervisor. There is no Linux and no Windows in the hypervisor at all. Completely separate things.
I wonder if Microsoft will change this in the future with all of the open source love they have at the moment. Although I kind of doubt it as they are trying to sell the management piece of it.
You think MS will move Office365 to Xen?
No, I'm wondering if they will opensource the management hooks for Hyper-V so it can be managed by Linux. Like I said probably wouldn't happen but would be cool if it did.
Ah ok. I misunderstood.,
-
@thanksaj said:
You think MS will move Office365 to Xen?
If you have enough clout you can demand that it be run that way
I know of places that have done it. -
@coliver said:
I wonder if Microsoft will change this in the future with all of the open source love they have at the moment. Although I kind of doubt it as they are trying to sell the management piece of it.
You can manage with a third party component either way. So I don't see why not. There is nothing to gain from having Windows in that role compared to Linux. Although there isn't much value to having Linux there either. My guess is they won't, but only because no one will care and it will make the ecosystem so much more confusing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
You think MS will move Office365 to Xen?
If you have enough clout you can demand that it be run that way
I know of places that have done it.Okay...weird...
-
@thanksaj not as strange as it sounds at first hearing. Office 365 runs on Azure. If you want to guarantee failover even if the entire Azure ecosystem fails how do you do it? You can't fail to another HyperV cloud, there isn't one. You can't fail to a top tier VMware or KVM cloud, there isn't one. All major enterprise clouds are Xen except for Azure which is HyperV. So if you demand failover capability at a cloud level, Xen is the only game in town.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj not as strange as it sounds at first hearing. Office 365 runs on Azure. If you want to guarantee failover even if the entire Azure ecosystem fails how do you do it? You can't fail to another HyperV cloud, there isn't one. You can't fail to a top tier VMware or KVM cloud, there isn't one. All major enterprise clouds are Xen except for Azure which is HyperV. So if you demand failover capability at a cloud level, Xen is the only game in town.
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
-
@thanksaj said:
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
Not once you are at the level where you worry about Microsoft as a company failing. The biggest corporate, military and government entities think on a different scale. They can't handle seven nines, they need ten nines. They have the fate of countries in the balance or companies the size of countries. They have to think about failover in the case of world wars and things like that. Once you are thinking that way, you can't have any one company dependency without considering what would happen if that company failed or went nuts or whatever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
Not once you are at the level where you worry about Microsoft as a company failing. The biggest corporate, military and government entities think on a different scale. They can't handle seven nines, they need ten nines. They have the fate of countries in the balance or companies the size of countries. They have to think about failover in the case of world wars and things like that. Once you are thinking that way, you can't have any one company dependency without considering what would happen if that company failed or went nuts or whatever.
Yeah, fair enough.
-
I've been in meetings where we considered disaster recovery and business continuity scenarios assuming global nuclear war and the possibility of dual nuclear strikes on Singapore and what we would do assuming that that happened and the two strikes were far enough geographically apart to take out that nation's redundancy! This was an actual consideration and one that warranted millions of dollars in DR investment to protect against!
