What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
KVM's focus is definitely Windows workloads that are bloated and can't be made thinner like we see in the Linux world.
Not really, I see a lot of KVM on large public openstack deployments (think digitalocean or vultr or whatever) and also in private DCs.
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Been migrating customers from VMWare and Xen to KVM for years, probably tens of thousands of hosts, if not hundreds, with most of those workloads being Linux VMs.
Most, but Windows is a taint here. Any Windows means you need KVM. Even if only one out of thousands of workloads. Unless you want different solutions for different workloads, which a lot of places want to avoid.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
No, not at all. There is a fair bit of Windows used here and there, but the main guest OS is Linux.
LXC is actually very rare in production (LXD is even rare-er).
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
LXC is actually very rare in production (LXD is even rare-er).
Because nearly everyone has Windows somewhere. Only completely Windows-less shops can consider a pure LXC environment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most, but Windows is a taint here. Any Windows means you need KVM. Even if only one out of thousands of workloads. Unless you want different solutions for different workloads, which a lot of places want to avoid.
A cloud provider can potentially create a system where if you pick Linux you get a container and if you pick Windows you get a VM, sure. But that's not how this is done today. Most cloud providers don't even touch containers outside a container specific system, like AKS/GKE (or the old school VPS based on Parallels/OVZ). Instead they simply give you a choice of guest OS and instance type, and you always get a proper VM.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
No, not at all. There is a fair bit of Windows used here and there, but the main guest OS is Linux.
Here and there... that requires that it be accommodated. Like I said, Windows is a taint. Any Windows means you have to do something special to handle it.
-
@scottalanmiller no, that's because there aren't any LXC-based VPS hosting solutions out there
Even OVZ is more common -
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most, but Windows is a taint here. Any Windows means you need KVM. Even if only one out of thousands of workloads. Unless you want different solutions for different workloads, which a lot of places want to avoid.
A cloud provider can potentially create a system where if you pick Linux you get a container and if you pick Windows you get a VM, sure. But that's not how this is done today. Most cloud providers don't even touch containers outside a container specific system, like AKS/GKE (or the old school VPS based on Parallels/OVZ). Instead they simply give you a choice of guest OS and instance type, and you always get a proper VM.
Right, because they want a single system to maintain rather than two. It makes sense. But that's my point...
People almost always want...
- A single platform.
- The option for Windows.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller no, that's because there aren't any LXC-based VPS hosting solutions out there
Even OVZ is more commonBecause they want to support Windows. Either already do, or are prepared for the future.
-
HostFav does LXC for their cloud, with a KVM option. They still want to support Windows, but were willing to give in on the "single platform" option.
-
@scottalanmiller well, in any case - that's where you get KVM from most providers. You want docker - you either deploy your own on cloud VMs or use GKE or whatever. I've never even seen LXC as an option
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller well, in any case - that's where you get KVM from most providers. You want docker - you either deploy your own on cloud VMs or use GKE or whatever. I've never even seen LXC as an option
Right, but of course you don't. I keep explaining why you don't and won't see it. But you keep responding with the result being exactly what I said.
-
And why do many of us choose Vultr? Because it provides a Windows option is a major reason. Sure the price is great and the reliability is great, but not having to have a different provider for different things is a major driver too. Even if we only have one Windows workload out of however many other things, it only takes one.
-
@scottalanmiller never even heard of HostFav, there are tons of small time providers out there, can't really cover them all.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller never even heard of HostFav, there are tons of small time providers out there, can't really cover them all.
Right, but the BIG providers all support Windows. It's needed to be a big player.
-
@scottalanmiller I don't use Vultr, so speak for yourself:) I also don't use Windows. But I use a lot of Linux on AWS and GCP as well as some openstack platforms. for me what is important isn't the ability to run Windows but the ability to run a proper OS and not a container, plus the more interesting instance types, like the i3.metal.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I don't use Vultr, so speak for yourself:) I also don't use Windows. But I use a lot of Linux on AWS and GCP as well as some openstack platforms. for me what is important isn't the ability to run Windows but the ability to run a proper OS and not a container, plus the more interesting instance types, like the i3.metal.
But big players require the ability to run Windows. You want big player features. You are just explaining back why it is a taint that affects you even when you don't recognize it. Only small players are LXC or OpenVZ only... since they can't service the vast majority of customers, even customers that are almost entirely Linux.
-
@scottalanmiller the really big providers also don't care about the cost of adding a feature like I mentioned earlier (if linux deploy on container, else deploy on VM), but they still default to VMs, despite the potential of such a feature to save them money due to better density and resource utilization
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller the really big providers also don't care about the cost of adding a feature like I mentioned earlier (if linux deploy on container, else deploy on VM), but they still default to VMs, despite the potential of such a feature to save them money due to better density and resource utilization
If they don't care to do so, why do you feel that that is given that you feel it would make them money? That sounds like they simply don't want to make money.
-
@scottalanmiller my take is that they don't really see it as a huge advantage. And they recognize customers like me, who need to run a proper OS and not a container. They also don't really care about what OS that will be.
To put it in agile task terms: as a user, I want to be able to run an OS and perform actions the same way as if I'd be doing that on real hardware. As a developer, want to develop a product that works on my test machines, and then deploy on AWS or GCP without surprises. As a developer I want to develop in the cloud, and know that my code will work on my clients' machines properly.
So this is not really about windows, this is about providing a proper guest and not a husk like a docker runtime.
