If all hypervisors were priced the same...



  • Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?



  • The one(s) that I can also view the source on.

    Hyper-V is great and all, but who honestly knows what the hell is going on under the hood?



  • And the follow up question, are we only talking locally hosted hypervisors, or are you discussing clouds like AWS and Azure?



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    And the follow up question, are we only talking locally hosted hypervisors, or are you discussing clouds like AWS and Azure?

    Local install. AWS/Azure/Google Cloud are sufficiently different to make including them a waste of time imo.



  • My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.



  • I think which one has the best management tools is more important, most of the hypervisors have the same features available.
    Xen is great and full featured, but management is not.
    XS made an api, but has abandoned it. xcp-ng could fix this issue.
    KVM is great and full featured, but management is not.
    There are a couple platforms for managing KVM hosts/guests, but not many and they all have limitations.
    If you want me to rank them
    1 Xen -- free both ways, a robust management api(through XS/xcp)
    2 KVM -- free both ways, a robust management api but mgmt options seem to all have one big drawback.
    3 HyperV -- free one way, large user base, easy management, adding features and integrations.
    4 VMWare -- Not free, too much money to get all features, large user base, good paid support.



  • @momurda said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    I think which one has the best management tools is more important, most of the hypervisors have the same features available.
    Xen is great and full featured, but management is not.
    XS made an api, but has abandoned it. xcp-ng could fix this issue.
    KVM is great and full featured, but management is not.
    There are a couple platforms for managing KVM hosts/guests, but not many and they all have limitations.
    If you want me to rank them
    1 Xen -- free both ways, a robust management api(through XS/xcp)
    2 KVM -- free both ways, a robust management api but mgmt options seem to all have one big drawback.
    3 HyperV -- free one way, large user base, easy management, adding features and integrations.
    4 VMWare -- Not free, too much money to get all features, large user base, good paid support.

    So if they all cost the same (either up or down in price), which out of that list would you pick?



  • I would still choose Xen, i like the Dom0 management model it uses. But i also have most xp with it at this point so that colours my opinion i am sure.



  • Backup support from vendors like Veeam makes a difference too.



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If you didn't have access to Xen Orchestra, would XenServer be your first choice still?



  • @black3dynamite said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If you didn't have access to Xen Orchestra, would XenServer be your first choice still?

    Likely yes, because before XO, there were numerous scripts that would create backups to remote targets (all supported and at no cost).

    Not to mention the features (which in this case we're considering all equal).



  • VMWare all else bring equal. We're including management in this as well?



  • If KVM came in a simple to install with management interface and backup appliance I would lean more towards that as its ingrained with the kernel.



  • @black3dynamite said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    If you didn't have access to Xen Orchestra, would XenServer be your first choice still?

    I switched from Hyper-V + Paid 5nine to XS+XC and was way happier with XS+XC well before I got into XO.
    XO seriously is a game changer though.



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    And the follow up question, are we only talking locally hosted hypervisors, or are you discussing clouds like AWS and Azure?

    That's a totally different animal and is just someone else running KVM for you.



  • I've never even used VMware, but I'm pretty sure if every single feature was available for free (like all the other hypervisors), then I'm pretty sure that's a no-brainer.



  • @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?

    If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.



  • @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    And the follow up question, are we only talking locally hosted hypervisors, or are you discussing clouds like AWS and Azure?

    That's a totally different animal and is just someone else running KVM for you.

    Well AWS is moving to KVM, but that needed to be clarified.



  • @bnrstnr said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @black3dynamite said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    If you didn't have access to Xen Orchestra, would XenServer be your first choice still?

    I switched from Hyper-V + Paid 5nine to XS+XC and was way happier with XS+XC well before I got into XO.
    XO seriously is a game changer though.

    I feel the same way when I first used XS+XC as well.



  • @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.

    I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.



  • @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.

    I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.

    Would you agree Virt Manager, Hyper-V Manager, XenCenter and Xen Orchestra UI a lot easier to use for the first-time users?



  • @black3dynamite said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    My preference, still would be Xen Server (soon to be XCP-ng) as it comes with an amazing management platform at no additional cost.

    And even for support the cost is nominal.

    KVM is great and all, but more often than not, something turnkey will win hands down.

    If XCP-ng cost the same as vSphere would that change your perspective? It seems (from the outside having only used vSphere free) that VMware's products are even more turnkey than the Xen based ones.

    I'm not sure that that is true. VMware is good, but I've never found it so much easier. If it is, it's just slightly easier. Now if it was totally free and there was zero licensing, that would improve the ease of use, too.

    Would you agree Virt Manager, Hyper-V Manager, XenCenter and Xen Orchestra UI a lot easier to use for the first-time users?

    Well those run a wide gamut. Some just as easy or easier, some much harder. I think VMware just fits into the field on the easy side, but "in the field."



  • @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?

    If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.

    Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.



  • @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?

    If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.

    Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.

    So what you're saying is if every hypervisor offered support and all features at no cost (because with XS or KVM you have community support) but actually "professional support" at no cost, which would be chosen?

    Likely the one with the longest track record of support. . .



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @scottalanmiller said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    Just wanted to start a discussion about this since I'm genuinely curious. If all hypervisors cost the same for equal tiers of features which one would you use and why?

    If it was truly "VMware ESXi plus ALL features (excluding support) for free with zero licensing, then I'd likely go for that. But we are talking about some crazy stuff there to go free.

    Free vs not free wasn't what I was getting at, but just removing price from the discussion entirely. Whether that means that features in Xen/KVM cost money to equal prices in VMware's portfolio, or VMware's products go free is immaterial to the discussion.

    So what you're saying is if every hypervisor offered support and all features at no cost (because with XS or KVM you have community support) but actually "professional support" at no cost, which would be chosen?

    Likely the one with the longest track record of support. . .

    Why do people mention length of track record? How is that relevant in any way to anything we do? I see this a lot but have no idea what value comes from "having offered support for a long time." That reflects a monetization effort and nothing of quality, stability, support value, longevity, future options, etc. Nothing we care about.

    Xen has been around the longest, and likely support has been available much longer than VMware. Then VMware. Simply because they are old. But by that logic, IBM S/360 predates them all. But obviously, is useless.



  • @scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.

    You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.



  • @kelly

    1. VMware ESXi cause It was the first to put web UI i reckon for management of the hyper-visor, and alot of people hated this and there was backlash, but they continued with the flash then HTML5 FLEX UI, and after while it was the sensible thing to do, it was not full featured nor fast like C# windows client but eventually they will reach it.
      Vmware being popular makes it easy to export/import VMs as well, if it was fully unlocked with backup API, once you have web management port that means you can reach it from anywhere using anything device with chrome browser on it.

    2. KVM, not cause of KVM cause it runs and actively supported and updated on Linux OSes, so eventually we will get all the features if not more, and benefits and more of ESXi via external packages like mdraid + cockpit, so you can build pretty strong system but the learning curve can scare people away.



  • @dustinb3403 said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @scottalanmiller A track record of support is much like looking at the sands of time.

    You get a feel for the quality of support that has been, and presumably remains with any vendor. And thus can have faith that the support offered is worthwhile.

    "A" track record is not related to "longest history". One implies "enough time to show quality" the other implies "time over quality".



  • @emad-r said in If all hypervisors were priced the same...:

    @kelly

    1. VMware ESXi cause It was the first to put web UI i reckon for management of the hyper-visor, ...

    Was it? Maybe, I'm not sure. But we were all begging for it from everyone at the time that they did it.