XS 7 or HyperV 2016
-
@FATeknollogee said in My experiences with Hyper-V Server 2016:
@JaredBusch Why not XS in production? Seems stable enough.
not the point of this thread. take it elsewhere.
-
@FATeknollogee said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@JaredBusch Why not XS in production? Seems stable enough.
Extreme stable. Xen is the most mature hypervisor on the market, as well. But they don't use XS where he is, Hyper-V is their expertise.
-
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
If you only "use what you are most comfortable with" at what point does one ever get out of their comfort zone & try something new?
-
@FATeknollogee said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@DustinB3403 said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
If you only "use what you are most comfortable with" at what point does one ever get out of their comfort zone & try something new?
This is a matter of production use vs lab use. In a lab, use whatever you want.
I get the concept, but it's a business matter, not a comfort one.
-
Nothing Wrong with Xenserver, stable, stable, stable, horses for courses.......
-
XS is stable, yes. But my problem with XS, as always, is backups and ease of handoff.
I had XS 6.5 up and running in my home lab for a while and those were the two issue that prevented me from doing anything with it in production.
Remember that "in production" means up and running in a tiny SMB that I am rarely at in person. XO is making things better, but then that turns into more expense with XOA or my time from source.
-
@DustinB3403 said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
It was forked, much to my amazement, without me asking, from https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016
-
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
XS is stable, yes. But my problem with XS, as always, is backups and ease of handoff.
You mean "handing off" the system to someone else?
-
@FATeknollogee said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
XS is stable, yes. But my problem with XS, as always, is backups and ease of handoff.
You mean "handing off" the system to someone else?
Yes.
-
@JaredBusch That's a valid concern!
-
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
Remember that "in production" means up and running in a tiny SMB that I am rarely at in person. XO is making things better, but then that turns into more expense with XOA or my time from source.
My thing about XO for MSPs, is that in a case where you can manage multiple clients, you can use XO as a central management console. Maybe you have a tool for that for Hyper-V or maybe you can't use that use case, but that's something I like a lot about XS and XO from an MSP perspective.
-
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@DustinB3403 said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
It was forked, much to my amazement, without me asking, from https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016
I thought the "fork" was a good idea, that way I didn't "jack" your original thread, since I was responsible for the sideways question
-
@FATeknollogee said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@DustinB3403 said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
I feel like this topic was forked.
To answer the question, you use what you are most comfortable with and can support (get support) for if needed.
It was forked, much to my amazement, without me asking, from https://mangolassi.it/topic/12296/my-experiences-with-hyper-v-server-2016
I thought the "fork" was a good idea, that way I didn't "jack" your original thread, since I was responsible for the sideways question
My opinion here is not new. I have stated it before in other threads.
-
some one tag this thread.
-
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
XS is stable, yes. But my problem with XS, as always, is backups and ease of handoff.
I've tried to ask @Olivier why not offer an SMB centric XOA version (priced right) with just the backup & DR features
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
Remember that "in production" means up and running in a tiny SMB that I am rarely at in person. XO is making things better, but then that turns into more expense with XOA or my time from source.
My thing about XO for MSPs, is that in a case where you can manage multiple clients, you can use XO as a central management console. Maybe you have a tool for that for Hyper-V or maybe you can't use that use case, but that's something I like a lot about XS and XO from an MSP perspective.
Wouldn't that mean exposing your XS to the internet? I suppose not if you lock the inbound ports to the IP of the XO, where ever it's hosted. So from a management point of view, that's great, but I don't think most would end up using the backup portion in that situation, soooo...
-
@FATeknollogee said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
@JaredBusch said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
XS is stable, yes. But my problem with XS, as always, is backups and ease of handoff.
I've tried to ask @Olivier why not offer an SMB centric XOA version (priced right) with just the backup & DR features
And he responded to that saying that it would bankrupt his company. They would spend so much time supporting those SMBs on that low price that they would lose money.
-
@Dashrender said in XS 7 or HyperV 2016:
Wouldn't that mean exposing your XS to the internet? I suppose not if you lock the inbound ports to the IP of the XO, where ever it's hosted. So from a management point of view, that's great, but I don't think most would end up using the backup portion in that situation, soooo...
How is this different from using (as an example) the built-in replication tool in Hyper-V? Either way you still need the 'net?
