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....?:
@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
-
@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....?:
@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
They started there, so there was a time that that was true. But they moved their focus onto KVM because they saw it as the more mature choice.
-
@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....?:
@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
There are better solutions, like KVM. But again, this was about what makes Hyper-V production worthy. Not about which hypervisor is better. That's why I was keeping on about Hyper-V.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
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.
Maybe like 10 years ago. I've been using it since 2013 or so and it's always been easy to deploy.
-
@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.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
-
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
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.
Maybe like 10 years ago. I've been using it since 2013 or so and it's always been easy to deploy.
Yeah, like a decade ago.
-
@obsolesce 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....?:
@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
There are better solutions, like KVM. But again, this was about what makes Hyper-V production worthy. Not about which hypervisor is better. That's why I was keeping on about Hyper-V.
Well, to be fair, if all other offerings sucked, Hyper-V would be amazing. Production ready, here, is really all by comparison to what else is on the market. In absolute terms, all available Type 1 hypervisors are better than physical installs and are therefore production ready if we don't consider the current state of the alternative available solutions.
So the question as to what makes Hyper-V good or bad is one purely of its comparison to the alternatives.
-
@stacksofplates 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....?:
@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.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
Same document: "Right now we are releasing the new Linux version, compatible with all industry-standard hypervisors: Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware ESXi, Xen and KVM. It includes Web Management Console, so you can use any convenient HTML5-capable browser to check and configure your infrastructure."
Maybe they are revamping the VSA and the VSA is about to be the legacy version just for VMware and the new stuff is for everything.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@stacksofplates 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....?:
@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.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
Same document: "Right now we are releasing the new Linux version, compatible with all industry-standard hypervisors: Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware ESXi, Xen and KVM. It includes Web Management Console, so you can use any convenient HTML5-capable browser to check and configure your infrastructure."
Maybe they are revamping the VSA and the VSA is about to be the legacy version just for VMware and the new stuff is for everything.
Ah I didn't see that. I just skimmed through. That's good then.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@stacksofplates 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....?:
@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.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
Same document: "Right now we are releasing the new Linux version, compatible with all industry-standard hypervisors: Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware ESXi, Xen and KVM. It includes Web Management Console, so you can use any convenient HTML5-capable browser to check and configure your infrastructure."
Maybe they are revamping the VSA and the VSA is about to be the legacy version just for VMware and the new stuff is for everything.
To be fair their documentation has said that for over a year.
So was it just never supported?
-
@stacksofplates said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@scottalanmiller said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
@stacksofplates 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....?:
@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.
Eh not really. They dropped support for the virtual appliance on anything other than VMware. So you have to manually do the work on KVM/Hyper-V or just aren't able to do it at all. I can't tell.
Same document: "Right now we are releasing the new Linux version, compatible with all industry-standard hypervisors: Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware ESXi, Xen and KVM. It includes Web Management Console, so you can use any convenient HTML5-capable browser to check and configure your infrastructure."
Maybe they are revamping the VSA and the VSA is about to be the legacy version just for VMware and the new stuff is for everything.
To be fair their documentation has said that for over a year.
So was it just never supported?
KVM was their main focus, but was a recent shift from Hyper-V. It was never available for paid support, but was supposed to be their next core product.
-
Also I can't find anywhere on how to actually deploy systems with this. It has a set up guide for the VSA but nothing else. There are guides for both Hyper-V and VMware but I can't find anything for KVM (other than the previously mentioned VSA guide).
-
Just spoke to them, they are revamping their product line so it's a moment of limbo between one being moved out of support for new deployments and the follow up being released, but KVM is their main focus of the new release.
-
@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.
Proof?
-
@phlipelder 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.
Proof?
Read the entire thread? Already answered.
-
@irj I find that to be an odd claim. Azure Stack is based on Storage Spaces Direct (S2D) and that's Hyper-V.
Nothing in Azure/O365 is the same as what we work with outside of their DCs. Nothing.
Nano gives us a bit of a glimpse into what is being done there. Calling what Nano does, and Windows Defender Application Guard which is the virtual isolation of Edge, Hyper-V is a bit of a stretch.
The hypervisor is just that. A layer between the guests and the hosts whatever it's named.
-
@jaredbusch No, I didn't realize just how long it was until I posted that. :S
-
@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.
Storage Spaces Direct is Microsoft's equivalent to vSAN.
-
We've been deploying virtualization solutions on Hyper-V since Longhorn/2008. We built our first cluster on the Intel Modular Server (probably the first to do so with Hyper-V) back in the day with our first IMS cluster deal following that up.
AD is not required for the Hyper-V host in standalone setups. We don't join a standalone Hyper-V host to the guest's domain. That provides a barrier between production and the virtualization stack.
Depending on client requirements, when we build-out a cluster setup we prefer to have a separate management AD for the cluster and the production AD for the guests separate. This is not always possible.
Why Hyper-V? We don't have to pay anything extra to build-out a virtualization platform for one.
We've done well with Hyper-V and Storage Spaces.
-
@phlipelder said in I think I am missing something about Hyper-V....?:
We've been deploying virtualization solutions on Hyper-V since Longhorn/2008. We built our first cluster on the Intel Modular Server (probably the first to do so with Hyper-V) back in the day with our first IMS cluster deal following that up.
That's impressive because because from what I remember hyper-v was terrible in 2008.
