Testing oVirt...



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    Remember you are talking to loads of people that were passionate about CentOS / EL in the past and switched recently because times have changed. So unless you worked for all of these places in the last 24 months, your experience is moot. All of our experiences would match that, as well.

    So one second you say business is slow to change, and then you say that is moot. OK.

    You are arguing for what businesses "do", which is irrelevant. That most companies do things badly is of no concern to us. What we care about is how should we do things to do them well.

    That "what good looks like" has changed and that's what we as IT pros care about. Doing what "everyone else does" is a recipe for disaster. We discuss this all the time. The "average" IT shop is terrible, and the average business loses money and fails. So what "everyone else does" is interesting to note, and worth looking at, but never a reason to not evaluate needs and look at the real world.

    But the point was, you used an example of "what people do" that exactly matched both cases - those that would switch to Fedora and those that don't. It's moot because you equally supported both points.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    Inside stats are misleading, though. Vendors paint a different picture for employees than what customers see. That's not an RH thing, that's universal.

    I've spent plenty of time on the customer side.

    I guarantee as an employee, there were zero stats kept about how they were doing unethical, maybe illegal, things with customers. Account managers don't report to engineering.

    That they had a process for this at all means it wasn't casual. This was a major effort to do what they did. If you didn't hear about it while there, then your stats aren't valid, if that makes sense. Because I bet you were told that nothing like that was happening with major customers (we had to be one of the five biggest customers.)

    We had the same thing internally at where I was, so I get how it happens. We happen to catch it in our case. HR was trying to sabotage some departments and telling people that the jobs were awful before those applicants went fully into the system. So the "stats" internally said one thing, but if you could find someone who had turned down a job with the company, you learned all kinds of secrets that weren't officially recorded anywhere.

    Same with RH - there is no chance that that activity was on the books. But it was a major effort to manipulate the customer. They could easily guarantee that their account would not be dropped if the heads of the engineering departments were working at RH and not at the customer.

    In a large company, stuff done by some members can be unethical. I seriously doubt it was something decided at the top company level though, and if you cared to complain all the way to the top, heads would have flown.

    when I worked at a hardware vendor we all know quite well, there was a sales team hired somewhere in Asia to do UK sales. They were told to sell as much as possible, provided training and left alone. A month later, a call came in from some old lady who was sold a rack of SAN equipment when she called for a printer. After an investigation, the entire team was sacked and the customers reimbursed. Does that make that vendor evil?



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    This doesn't mean EL is less stable or has less support, you simply found a niche use case which works for you. Huge difference

    Same in reverse. You started this by pushing that EL was so much better because it gets testing and more support. You made us explain why that doesn't work for us (and anyone of whom we know.) It has a bigger support process, but we aren't convinced the support is actually better in end results. We've shown that it may not even be able to claim to have support technically in a few weeks any longer. And that "EL works for you" is fine, but we are saying that they both work, but one works "better".

    You are requiring the position be that EL doesn't work at all, but that's not the case. It's that we believe Fedora has pulled ahead. And that's where I feel you aren't reading what we are writing. You are giving lots of great examples of why EL has some great value and advantages. But you aren't explaining why you feel they are more important than the reasons why Fedora has advantages.

    Everything you are saying about EL we already knew and accepted and used and believe fell in value in the last two years to the point where Fedora pulled ahead in real world desirability for most production environments. And in all of this, I feel like you are only arguing for getting up to the starting point of the discussion where we were before we first looked into this years ago.

    So consider it that we accept everything you said, and thought that it was all assumed, and didn't realize it needed to be stated. Now from this point, explain why you feel that outweigh's Fedora's advantages such as actual package support, working applications, no significant kernel issues, higher speed, more mature code, more packages, more features, working upgrade paths, etc.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    In a large company, stuff done by some members can be unethical. I seriously doubt it was something decided at the top company level though, and if you cared to complain all the way to the top, heads would have flown.

    Maybe, but they probably should have been following up with customers, too. This went very, very high at the customer and ended up affecting the RH relationship at multiple F100 companies. And has been published publicly more than a few times. RH has never once acknowledged, reprimanded, explained or apologized.

    I think it's unreasonable that senior management doesn't know. Either they are putting their heads in the sand and don't want to know what customers are experiencing; or they are complacently allowing stuff like this to happen.

    Maybe they realized the risk was too large and backed off. Maybe they didn't realize they would get caught. Who knows. What I know is, there's no plausible way they didn't either ignore it or outright condone it.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    when I worked at a hardware vendor we all know quite well, there was a sales team hired somewhere in Asia to do UK sales. They were told to sell as much as possible, provided training and left alone. A month later, a call came in from some old lady who was sold a rack of SAN equipment when she called for a printer. After an investigation, the entire team was sacked and the customers reimbursed. Does that make that vendor evil?

    So the did something to fix the situation? That's the difference between them and RH. RH has never once attempting to rectify it to the customer, or to the employees.

    So you see why I see RH as very, very different.

    And overselling to someone is the job of sales, violating professional and business ethics is not. Nor is attempting to poach customer staff.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    But in the real world, you don't have these problems with Fedora. You are correct, those are things you don't want happening. Thankfully, Fedora protects you from that. That's the point.

    How does Fedora protect you? It's a distro packaged, with some bugfixes here and there, no formal QA besides the very basics, no support, nothing. I'm fine with that on my laptop, but on a thousand servers?

    The apps we run (and develop) are tested against Fedora, so.... where do you see the concern? Why would the customer(s) need to deal with these problems, what's the source of your worries?

    The apps don't run in a vacuum, they rely on layers of software. Do you test all those layers?

    How much stuff are you running on the servers?

    For example, I have a bunch of Fedora 28 web servers. They run the typical LAMP stack.

    There was a PHP dev here who designed some LoB PHP app, but on old version of CentOS. And when I suggested we move to a new server (due to hundreds of complaints by users a month), I proposed Fedora, built one, and helped him migrate everything over. Of course, it was designed to use old AF PHP, so it needed to be fixed, and he didn't want to do that or take the time to do it.

    But I emailed him back regarding PHP 7, and he was absolutely hooked. Just going to PHP 7 by itself was a several-fold performance improvement. And that's excluding going from old AF MySQL, to MariaDB, as well as all the CURRENT packages of software.

    The end result was an incredibly improved end user experience, lots of compliments all around. Why? Because current software.



  • @obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:

    @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    But in the real world, you don't have these problems with Fedora. You are correct, those are things you don't want happening. Thankfully, Fedora protects you from that. That's the point.

    How does Fedora protect you? It's a distro packaged, with some bugfixes here and there, no formal QA besides the very basics, no support, nothing. I'm fine with that on my laptop, but on a thousand servers?

    The apps we run (and develop) are tested against Fedora, so.... where do you see the concern? Why would the customer(s) need to deal with these problems, what's the source of your worries?

    The apps don't run in a vacuum, they rely on layers of software. Do you test all those layers?

    How much stuff are you running on the servers?

    For example, I have a bunch of Fedora 28 web servers. They run the typical LAMP stack.

    There was a PHP dev here who designed some LoB PHP app, but on old version of CentOS. And when I suggested we move to a new server (due to hundreds of complaints by users a month), I proposed Fedora, built one, and helped him migrate everything over. Of course, it was designed to use old AF PHP, so it needed to be fixed, and he didn't want to do that or take the time to do it.

    But I emailed him back regarding PHP 7, and he was absolutely hooked. Just going to PHP 7 by itself was a several-fold performance improvement. And that's excluding going from old AF MySQL, to MariaDB, as well as all the CURRENT packages of software.

    The end result was an incredibly improved end user experience, lots of compliments all around. Why? Because current software.

    Oh, back to my initial point lol (forgot).

    Are you using your Fedora servers to do so many different things, so many different roles and so many different softwares?

    How many bugs are in current software that you're so worried about? No bugs in any of the stuff running on our Fedora servers.... so not sure where that fits.



  • Maybe this summary will help to explain why we feel the way that we do...

    I think we all agree, and have always felt that...

    1. EL is an excellent product.
    2. EL has great support.

    And then that...

    1. Fedora is an excellent product.
    2. Fedora support is good enough that we see nominal value in anything more.

    But then that...

    1. Fedora includes features and performance benefits that are more than nominal.


  • @obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:

    How many bugs are in current software that you're so worried about? No bugs in any of the stuff running on our Fedora servers.... so not sure where that fits.

    Right, this is my point. We run all kinds of workloads on Fedora and see zero concerns with bugs. PHP is a big one, but we run lots of other things, too. It's our database platform, it's our dev platform, it's our app platform. We haven't experienced any of these issues, we know of no one experiencing them.

    And since the apps we use are tested on Fedora (when they are not, we use something else, like Zimbra on CentOS - which really shows the performance problems of being old and not kept up to date like we'd like) there isn't a lot of opportunity for new, unknown bugs to crop up since the entire stack is tested.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    @obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:

    @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:

    Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.

    Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?

    Please tell me what the point is in CentOS running PHP 5.6?

    I mean, Look how old it is, and look when it looses support!
    0_1539964222291_f3cbf980-1f60-44a2-996f-beba1de651c0-image.png

    Fedora 28 uses 7.2.x, FAR FROM BLEEDING EDGE (ffs!). And oh looky, supported for longer than 2 more months lol.

    Have fun upgrading the CentOS LTS servers you use to the next CentOS LTS... EVERYTHING will break, including all of your PHP apps.

    One COULD argue that RHEL goes out of support when PHP does. From an application perspective, using RHEL 7 would be "unsupported".

    By that logic, which is pretty solid in reality, Fedora is the supported OS, not RHEL, come January.

    Yeah, but why purposely run bad performing software for years when there's a better and more stable option?



  • NodeBB is another platform that is woefully behind on CentOS.

    And basically every database. And in the NoSQL space, the lack of updates can mean some significant loss of functionality.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:

    Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.

    Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?

    I think Fedora rawhide has bleeding edge. Do also call the applications bleeding edge too?



  • Just saw this and totally reminded me of containers (which we've had for decades) and the ebb and flow of wanting things containerized, then merged, then containerized again...

    sandboxing_cycle.png



  • And then this one, apropos stuff from XKCD. "All services are microservices if you ignore most of their features."

    containers.png



  • @FATeknollogee said in Testing oVirt...:

    Also waiting for this beta to drop: https://www.trilio.io/triliovault/

    Update: The Trilio saga....😰

    I followed up with Trilio.
    A lot of promises/dates were made (by Trilio) as to when a beta would be made available for testing.
    Needless to say, they never came through.
    Finally in Dec 2018, they said we are ready for the demo, we will show you a working product.
    The day came, Trilio said, sorry it's too close to Xmas, we will postpone the demo's till 2019.
    In 2019, I continued to follow up & finally they set a date for another demo - Jan 29.
    On Jan. 29, we get on the Webex, they said, sorry the demo just broke 10 mins prior to our call, so no demo.
    They show me some screenshots & their OpenStack version & again promise to get me beta software in a few days.
    I continue to follow up (via email)

    Yesterday (Feb 6), I get an email from Thomas Lahive GM; Sales and Alliance Partners....(copied & pasted below):
    "We started RHV betas and decided to prioritize current Trilio customers (those that purchased Triliovault for Openstack). 
    If you would like to be part of the beta now then We can sign you up as a certified Trilio reseller which has a $7,500 Starter Fee. The $7,500 will be credited against your first customer order that is at least $7,500 so it will eventually cost you nothing. Many of our partners can apply the fee against revenue so it's a great tax incentive, but you can confirm with your finance department.  
    Please Lmk how you would like to proceed."

    Please remember, I have never seen a working demo of this product, never.

    Is this typical behavior of RH partners?



  • @FATeknollogee partners are all very separate. The actions of one really do not reflect on others.



  • @FATeknollogee these guys sound really bad. I mean I can understand business decisions, they might not be seeing much demand for RHV, compared to Openstack, so they shift resources away, but feeding a customer promises is not good practice.

    Check out Storware instead, they are very much oriented towards oVirt and RHV



  • A bit OT but I've tried to find the suse competitor of RHV and I've not found it... Is there anything from suse?



  • @matteo-nunziati said in Testing oVirt...:

    A bit OT but I've tried to find the suse competitor of RHV and I've not found it... Is there anything from suse?

    Probably but I've not used them for that in a long time. Would be interesting to know.



  • @dyasny What are you doing w drovirt?



  • @matteo-nunziati frankly, I'm surprised SuSE still exists 🙂



  • @FATeknollogee nothing yet, been meaning to contribute some code, but I've been extremely busy with my daytime job lately



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @matteo-nunziati frankly, I'm surprised SuSE still exists 🙂

    They where quite strong in Europe a few years ago. But the company has been sold so many times...



  • @matteo-nunziati said in Testing oVirt...:

    @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    @matteo-nunziati frankly, I'm surprised SuSE still exists 🙂

    They where quite strong in Europe a few years ago. But the company has been sold so many times...

    That is a sure way to kill a product. Everyone starts to feel uncertain and then people give up while waiting for the dust to settle and the more that people wait, the more that the dust doesn't settle and soon everyone just gives up on it.



  • @matteo-nunziati Novell used to be bigger than Microsoft, I was a huge fan of NetWare back in the day. But SuSE is not Novell, and they have been scrapping around for some final dregs of their former glory to capitalize on. Obviously, that cannot work for too long.

    They kept the lights on in Europe because as a German company they could capitalize on a bit of customer loyalty there, but again, it's meaningless when you don't have a product to sell, and your competition does.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    Novell used to be bigger than Microsoft

    That's been a very long time 🙂 1992 probably. Pre-NT era.



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    But SuSE is not Novell, and they have been scrapping around for some final dregs of their former glory to capitalize on. Obviously, that cannot work for too long.

    It's sad because they were so great in the early 2000s.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    Novell used to be bigger than Microsoft

    That's been a very long time 🙂 1992 probably. Pre-NT era.

    NT is what killed it. But in the mid-90s I had netware 3 based clusters serving multi-site locations with frame-relay links, running IPX/SPX and diskless clients. Good times



  • @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    NT is what killed it.

    Yeah, Netware on DR-DOS was very.... aged by that point.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:

    @dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

    NT is what killed it.

    Yeah, Netware on DR-DOS was very.... aged by that point.

    Why DRDOS? NWDOS-7 was great, it could even do multithreading and networking