If all hypervisors were priced the same...
-
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.
