I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?
-
@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.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
Sometimes I use VMWare, sometimes Hyper-V, sometimes KVM... soon xcp-ng.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
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.
What...no love for XCP-ng?
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
You’re an asshole, get over yourself.
Not my intention at all, I don't mean to come off that way.
I try to stick to facts, and leave emotion out of it.
-
@obsolesce said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
You do realize I'm a KVM fan, though, right? It's my preference to work with.
My avatar is a damn penguin FFS, not a Hyper-V logo.The difference between you and I, is I prefer to use the right tool for the environment or job... depending on a lot of factors, rather than based on my emotions and lack of skills.
Sweet, it’s awesome that you love KVM. For the love of god, I’m not emotional about the damn thing. I simply stated that there is so much negativity towards Microsoft in IT communities, yet Hyper-V gets a free pass. Then you guys misconstrued and ran with it never looking back. I listed a huge plus to Huper-v that was completely overlooked while you were clowning about emotions. My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it. It’s harder to manage, even after AD or Workgroup credentials are set. I don’t like it, but I understand it has it’s place, which I already stated and was clearly ignored about. You’ve been fighting me tooth and nail about the damn authentication, I’m simply stating that it is not as easy as the other options... that’s it
-
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@irj said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@jaredbusch said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@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.
How is it a huge gotcha when most business have an AD infrastructure anyway?
Wow so you cant use Hyper-V without a domain? Did it always use to be that way? I seem to think it didn't matter at some point?
Of course you can. But you have to do a few extra things manually with setting up trusts and delegation rights. There is a lot of confusion on this and a lot of misinformation out there.
I do totally agree that Microsoft screwed up by not making this simpler.
I guess if you aren't using AD, you probably aren't too fond of MS and are unlikely to use Hyper-V.
I dont' agree here. With the liking MS = using AD assumption. This just isn't the case. If you are a hard core MS fanboi and trust them up the wazoo... you still only use AD some of the time. No amount of loving or trusting MS makes you always use AD. MS doesn't recommend AD in very small shops, highly disparate shops, or in nearly any case where AzureAD can be used instead. MS has alternatives that they promote in those cases.
Using AD isn't an MS vs not-MS discussion. MS is not synonymous with AD. In reality, there are way more AD fans out there than MS fans. The number of people who choose AD because of an emotional reason seems way higher than the number of people that love MS emotionally.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
I haven’t kept up with the recent stuff about them recommending kvm. That’s awesome, I just knew there was a huge starwind/hyper-v following
-
@fateknollogee said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
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.
What...no love for XCP-ng?
No, their support model insanity makes me fear for their long term stability. It's a wonderful idea, but came too late and with no sensible support options. KVM has solid backing, and solid support options.
XCP-NG is fine, but at this point, what benefit is it bringing over KVM? KVM used to be a pain to deploy, but no longer. KVM has the momentum, no matter how much I like Xen fundamentally. Investing in it for a new deployment just isn't something I see a likely ability to create a value proposition for.
-
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@bnrstnr said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
My opinion is Hyper-V is only an option when you need vSAN, otherwise I’m just not buying it.
What makes it special in that case? AFAIK there is no production vSAN for Hyper-V that is unique to it. Hyper-V is effectively completely dependent on Starwind for vSAN and they recommend KVM most of the time.
Right, Starwind makes it a more viable solution because it’s free and easy and well documented, right?
No, Starwind does not. Starwind just doesn't discriminate against it. Starwind is just as easy on VMware or KVM. So it's a draw, unless you consider Xen, then it is just a negative for Xen.
Lmao, so I was wrong. I was trying to help Hyper-V, but damnit I should have known there were better solutions
