WSL2 tells us a lot. First, Microsoft is really making it more known that WSL has no Linux and is just Ubuntu (or whatever) on the Windows kernel. Second, Microsoft is making it clearer that there was no virtualization going on in WSL. Third, now there is Hyper-V and a Linux kernel involved. So now it is just virtualizating a Linux instance on top of Windows. Fourth, now it is much faster. That means that Linux on Hyper-V is faster than Windows on bare metal!

@Dashrender said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @wrx7m said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @wrx7m said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S They list both the 61xx and 62xx as options for the R740XD. Good! What CPUs do you have in the R720 today? 1 or 2 CPUs? Do you want the new ones to be faster or just capable of running more VMs? I have 2 x E5-2609 CPUs in each server. I would like faster, but more VMs would be the priority. The E5-2609 CPUs are at the low end of what was available at the time so no problem there. Actually, are you looking to keep the old servers around for testing and such? In that case you could just drop in refurbished CPUs that are faster and/or has more cores for very little money. If the server can take E5-2600 V2 you can get up to 12 core CPUs. yeah, but Windows licensing is an issue, assuming multiple CPUs... for a test server, not likely worth going over the 16 cores. Not to mention the test server might require licensing (if needed beyond the 90 day test period for something). Two 8-cores would be an option. For instance two E5-2690. They are 2.9 GHz base frequency and have 8 cores. About $100 each when buying refurbished. About 50% faster per core (2609 have no turbo) and about 3 times faster multicore performance. Has more cache and faster memory transfer speed. Was a very high end CPU at the time. Was listed at $2000 while the E5-2609 was $300. The fastest 8-core E5-2600 V2 CPU is the E5-2667 V2. 8 cores and base frequency of 3.3 GHz. It will likely also be an option for the R720XD. V2 uses 22nm technology so uses less power with the same clock speed and can fit more cores or run higher frequencies.

@scottalanmiller said in P2V Windows 2000 on KVM: So this is ridiculous, but we just found out that it is actually 2003 R2, not 2000. So I assume that this will be way better. I had a ton of issues getting mine to work - I had to run chkdsk like 15 times before it finally booted... I don't recall what migration tool I used.

For Fedora you can just do sudo dnf install vagrant-libvirt

1 .So can ovirt be run with only 2 nodes? 2. With those 2 nodes, do you need a separate shared storage device for live migrations, etc, or can you have local storage (Like "vsan")?

@FATeknollogee said in oVirt Host Choices for Production: @EddieJennings I would start by using oVirt Node (it's based on CentOS), it's the simplest, least hassled way of setting up. Yeah, they have their own Node deployer, I'd generally just use that.

@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: @scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: @Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: @IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server? Nobody in their right mind would do that. Again, like Scott, why add in things that were never part of any point? Let me refresh the point: Scott originally compared full blown Windows Desktop GUI plus web browser and other app RAM usage, to a minimal gui-less Linux server RAM usage. This was what I was arguing against, that the comparison was not fair and was not set up correctly. Except I was specifically making the comparison on use case, not on technology. So the bases for your correction doesn't make sense. I pointed out that one was assumed to have a GUI and be used graphically, and one was assumed to be a headless server. So my comparison wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was use case vs. use case. What use case comparison involves Windows GUI + web browsing versus GUI-less Linux minimal install? Lots. Like when you are using RDS versus using a PBX. It's that we are comparing different use cases is the point. Not comparing the same use case in two different places.

It only seems like private isn't available because no one does that. Why wants private cloud? no one, not really. It's essentially a dumb idea. It basically exists for crazy people and governments where "good decision making" isn't a factor. But hybrid is ruled out in both of those cases either because it doesn't support the "crazy" or the legal government requirement.

@Francesco-Provino said in virt-manager for Windows: @scottalanmiller you don’t want a GUI on the virtualization host, ever. Just spin a VM with virt-manager and launch it on your local machine with xming or one of the other solutions in the other comments. Right, bypassing Windows can be an option, but it's a crappy one. But I got it working directly on Windows, so no need for a heavy VM for one app.

@scottalanmiller I was considering rolling them back to last night as a last-ditch scenario is all fails since it is on Veeam and I have a Full from last night.

@JaredBusch said in Conatainers (Docker) vs VMs - When and Why?: @Obsolesce said in Conatainers (Docker) vs VMs - When and Why?: Are there many use cases in the SMB outside of Dev? Not even in dev really for the SMB. Just use a single VM to do the work. SMB rarely needs to scale. Other than as you stated, the solution is presented that way. Like UNMS. Even enterprise rarely need to scale that way. It's more for hosting companies than anything.

@Vlinderbeest said in Infrastructure Needed for Hypervisor Cluster: @scottalanmiller said in Infrastructure Needed for Hypervisor Cluster: Clustering is done when the cost of clustering is low versus the risk of not clustering. I would change that slightly to Clustering is done when the cost of clustering is low versus the cost of not clustering. A risk is always a cost, but some costs are not risks. For example taking down a hypervisor for maintenance vs moving guests to another node and taking down a free node for maintenance. Sure, using risk cost vs investment cost as cost v cost is a perfect valid way to look at it. I use that all the time in the opposite way. You can say that risk is a cost. Or conversely, you can look at the clustering cost up front as essentially a "financial event" similar to an outage.

@JaredBusch said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer: The XCP-NG team is a team that had a horrible business model that they were trying to implement around XenServer (XOA). Great concept, poor business model. I wish them well but they are fighting a few things... Citrix couldn't make any real money even when they charged more and people were taking the product seriously. Last time I checked they were just replacing some management components and packaging some storage stuff. They are not investing in upstream and there's a lot of... changes coming in hardware that are going to require non-trivial investments for hypervisors to remain relevant. The real problem with Xen is upstream investment is drying up. Citrix has pulled back, Amazon and other cloud providers have moved on to KVM, SuSE doesn't even market virtualization (SAP HANA support, containers, OS is as close to bare metal as they get). Outside of some people in ARM/automotive virtualization I haven't seen anyone picking it up for net new projects. In the enterprise Oracle is the only champion of it these days. KVM won the open source hypervisor war (although at this point does anyone really care?)

Can you reassign disks between VMs yet? The hot add disks was a huge pain before. I couldn't believe I wasn't able to do that.

@stacksofplates said in Kvm network troubleshooting: @scottalanmiller said in Kvm network troubleshooting: Your server has an IP address of 192.168.122.1? Is that correct? Nothing wrong with that technically, but it would be exceptionally unusual. That's almost always the gateway address. What is the address of your gateway? That's libvirts virtual bridge address for the NAT network. Oh, duh, I missed the bridge. Carry on.

@atahaynah said in Cockpit: @DustinB3403 it was stopped But fortunately i got it resolved i had to downgrade one packege and after that restarted the service and it worked What did you downgrade to fix the issue?

@scottalanmiller RHV now, after a rebrand in 2016-ish