I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
to be fair, nobody has listed a single benefit of using HyperV over Xen or ESXi or KVM, other than backup vendor support, which is debatable.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Why the hell would you go and change out your whole infrastructure because a hypervisor has a random benefit? They all have benefits, they all have pros and cons.
This isn't a "convince me to switch out KVM with Hyper-V" topic. That you are treating it as such totally explains your attitude in this topic... but is a completely different direction here.
Each hypervisor has it's place. You are treating it as "only use X hypervisor everywhere".Not at all. A huge benefit of Hyper-V, IMO, is if you need vSAN you can use StarWind. I don't need that, so I don't use Hyper-V. If there are other scenarios where it makes the MOST sense to use Hyper-V, I'm not aware of them.
SAM mentions in his video that XS is extremely crippled and lagging behind full blown Xen which would otherwise be a top pick. I would argue that XCP-ng belongs on that short list (above KVM) because of XO. XS/XO is better than Hyper-V in every aspect that matters to me, personally, obviously not everybody and in every circumstance.
XO makes perfect sense for the SMB...
-
This whole topic is about:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
What makes Hyper-V a valid option in production environment?
A TON of valid reasons to use it in a production environment were given.
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
That was not the question being answered here, which is why you aren't finding the answer in this topic.
My answer was completely valid in answering the topic, and wasn't meant to answer the emotional shitfest going on in your head.
-
@obsolesce what about this part of the OP?
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It seems lacking compared to other virtualization options.
you should have just posted SAMs video and saved your incoherent rambling.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
I didn't once bring up KVM, until 7 minutes ago. I asked what makes it better and then you and JB went off on me claiming all sorts of emotional setbacks that dont actually exist. It truly seems that you have a boner for Hyper-V more than anything else, hence your die hard defense of their product.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Only later in the topic... YOU seemed to have taken it the wrong way and for you was a "what benefits does Hyper-V have, that KVM does not?"
I didn't once bring up KVM, until 7 minutes ago. I asked what makes it better and then you and JB went off on me claiming all sorts of emotional setbacks that dont actually exist. It truly seems that you have a boner for Hyper-V more than anything else, hence your die hard defense of their product.
Dude, all of your posts in here from the very beginning were all about comparing to "other hypervisors". Go back up and look.
BUT, this topic was about:
What makes Hyper-V a valid option in production environment?
My answers were for answering the OP. They weren't meant to answer "which hypervisor should bnrstnr run in his environment."
And then the question was asked:
It seems lacking compared to other virtualization options.
To which I also addressed in my first comment, that it's really not lacking.
Then all of your replies after were about you getting all butthurt over Hyper-V being too hard to use.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
It's very simple to set up in a properly configured AD environment. You basically just install it, join it to the domain, configure it remotely. It just works. (so long as your AD environment is set up correctly)
This is the huge gotcha. The fact that it has to be domain joined to easily manage it is silly, IMO. Other hypervisors don't require this at all. Other hypervisors just work without this step.
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Also, it's the most compatible solution for Windows-world stuff.
What specifically makes it more compatible than other hypervisors? I've run windows on several hypervisors and can't tell any difference.
I've easily deployed it without AD
-
@momurda thats the only benefit if you are in vendor backup. I am. While I really like kvm I would not recommend it to the average italian sysadmin who unfortunately ignores linux.
-
My 2 cents.
Vmware too expensive if you do not run 15k€ stuff. Still over 15k€ has budget impact.KVM no agentless backup a la altaro/veeam.
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
Would you like freebsd/netbsd/openbsd virtualization? Good luck.
Hyperv simply satisfies my requirements.
Matter of tastes it is really commodity. Like Dell vs HPE.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
How could xcp-ng not be stable when it's the same source code as xenserver 7.4?
That makes no sense. -
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
How about when you want to virtualize the AD?
-
@pete-s said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@matteo-nunziati said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Xen still crippled until xcp-ng will be declared stable by the community.
How could xcp-ng not be stable when it's the same source code as xenserver 7.4?
That makes no sense.They patch the source of a number of xenserver components. Btw my fault it is not xen per se it is xenserver. No one in smb uses xen outside of xenserver+xoa
-
@pete-s said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
How about when you want to virtualize the AD?
You virtualize it and then join the hypervisor. Sort of hyperconverged stuff.
-
@obsolesce whatever bro. You apparently don’t know how to read. I called you out on your bullshit statement that it’s just as easy to deploy (no idea your actual wording, replying from phone) as other hypervisors then in turned into a pissing match because I insulted your precious Hyper-V. You’re an asshole, get over yourself.
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Is there something with Windows licensing that makes attractive?
No hypervisor can have any effect on Windows licensing. Windows licenses by "virtual" and knowledge of what hypervisor is involved is never needed.
-
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I love KVM. But not a single client has it in production.
We are moving to it across the board for small clients - lower cost to maintain, fewer skills or third party tools needed. Specifically good for smaller clients without the skill sets and/or extra tools necessary to use Hyper-V.
-
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said
It's on you to prove that has changed! You are ridiculous
I showed you proof that they didnt use Hyper-V. show me proof they do!
It's not my job to correct your lack of knowledge.
If you've been in the IT world (like you claim), Microsoft has said, for many years, Azure runs on Hyper-V.
That doesn't mean it's a version of Hyper-V that you or I can get/download.
It's not any different than Amazon running Xen, doesn't mean you get access to the exact same code!!....lol...
Amazon is going to KVM!!!
If you've been in the IT world (like you claim), Amazon has said, since last year, AWS runs on KVM.
That doesn't mean it's a version of KVM that you or I can get/download.
It's not any different than Microsoft running Azure, doesn't mean you get access to the exact same code!!I guess Amazon took all their existing Xen infrastructure & threw it in the trash!
They are running both. KVM gets the bulk of new deploys.
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
Sounds like they are using KVM or another solution and using ideas to make improvements to Hyper-V
It's Azure Stack... running on a stripped down version of Hyper-V.
Ok.. Now why dont we get access to this super special version?
You can.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/overview/azure-stack/Have you tried it?
It seems like it would consume less resources than Hyper-V
What about it would make it leaner?
-
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
What are they using?
MS uses MS virtualization for Azure, it just isn't Hyper-V. It's Azure (yes, the name is redundant.) It's very, very related to Hyper-V, but not exactly Hyper-V. That much, AFAIK, is public and correct. There are things not known about it, but my understanding is that it is a very close cousin to Hyper-V with some tweaks for the specific environment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
I find it funny that Microsoft doesn't use their own virtualization for Azure.
What are they using?
MS uses MS virtualization for Azure, it just isn't Hyper-V. It's Azure (yes, the name is redundant.) It's very, very related to Hyper-V, but not exactly Hyper-V. That much, AFAIK, is public and correct. There are things not known about it, but my understanding is that it is a very close cousin to Hyper-V with some tweaks for the specific environment.
I know that & like you said it's been public knowledge for years.
I asked the question 'coz he stated it as fact, that Msft wasn't using Hyper-V in Azure.
