What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
You are thinking of PV Drivers, like KVM, ESXi, and Hyper-V use. No driver needed for full PV like Xen has. Instead, the entire kernel has to be recompiled for it!
But the kernel is, essentially, a blob of drivers
whether you compile or install modules, you get a new set of drivers in the end -
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
But in any case, KVM is native to Linux, while Xen is a separate, foreign kernel that will never be a part of Linux. So, IMO, things would be better suited completely switched to KVM, instead of people insisting on sticking with Xen.
Had KVM been the original project, I would agree completely. But I'm not sure that sharing the Linux kernel for two different purposes is best. It seems to come with a lot of benefits, but a lot of negatives, too. There is a reason that no one else goes down that path for this.
-
I think Xen's future is to follow ESXi's path. Removing the Dom0, growing the kernel, and moving to limited, enterprise only, hardware support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Had KVM been the original project, I would agree completely. But I'm not sure that sharing the Linux kernel for two different purposes is best. It seems to come with a lot of benefits, but a lot of negatives, too. There is a reason that no one else goes down that path for this.
ESXi went down that path, didn't they? Nobody else[1] did because KVM is already there and available, all you need is to build a suitable kernel and maybe your own take on QEMU (like Amazon did).
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I think Xen's future is to follow ESXi's path. Removing the Dom0, growing the kernel, and moving to limited, enterprise only, hardware support.
I'm pretty sure they don't have the resources to do that. Nor is there any need - Xen as a commercial offering isn't anything to write home about, and as opensource, there isn't much demand for a slim hypervisor-only OS without cluster-level management abilities. Citrix might do something like that for the same reasons ESXi is available for free - as a first dose to get people hooked, but I'm not sure they can or want to invest so much in such an offering.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Had KVM been the original project, I would agree completely. But I'm not sure that sharing the Linux kernel for two different purposes is best. It seems to come with a lot of benefits, but a lot of negatives, too. There is a reason that no one else goes down that path for this.
ESXi went down that path, didn't they? Nobody else[1] did because KVM is already there and available, all you need is to build a suitable kernel and maybe your own take on QEMU (like Amazon did).
Hyper-V and Xen made separate kernels, but not their own driver sets.
-
@scottalanmiller oh there are SOME drivers in those separate kernels, else they wouldn't be able to work at all.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I think Xen's future is to follow ESXi's path. Removing the Dom0, growing the kernel, and moving to limited, enterprise only, hardware support.
I'm pretty sure they don't have the resources to do that. Nor is there any need - Xen as a commercial offering isn't anything to write home about, and as opensource, there isn't much demand for a slim hypervisor-only OS without cluster-level management abilities. Citrix might do something like that for the same reasons ESXi is available for free - as a first dose to get people hooked, but I'm not sure they can or want to invest so much in such an offering.
They are at record support numbers now that Citrix has bowed out. Citrix was blocking that back when they were involved. Now that Citrix's sabotage of Xen is done, Xen is picking up again as people see their efforts bearing fruit.
Citrix wouldn't do that as they aren't associated with Xen. Citrix has no interest in it (and really never did.) They wanted the name to start their "brand legacy tech virtualization to confuse customers" project. Citrix doesn't do anything virtualization related anymore, just some lingering money grabs with their old XenServer, but that's long dead.
I think it is Xen's obvious future. Xen has a lot going for it, but they need to leapfrog others to be seriously relevant.
-
@scottalanmiller I frankly doubt there is much of a chance for Xen making anything worthwhile these days. With containers taking over most workloads and things like firecracker popping up, even KVM is losing ground. Openstack, the main locomotive for KVM adoption, isn't the cool new cloud platform any longer, and even it is adopting k8s and containers under the hood.
I think virtualization will become a niche platform technology in a few years, and if MS keep at their current direction, we might even see a common platform, where MS Windows 25 and Linux have the same base kernel and can easily run in the same container. We'll see
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller I frankly doubt there is much of a chance for Xen making anything worthwhile these days. With containers taking over most workloads and things like firecracker popping up, even KVM is losing ground. Openstack, the main locomotive for KVM adoption, isn't the cool new cloud platform any longer, and even it is adopting k8s and containers under the hood.
KVM's focus is definitely Windows workloads that are bloated and can't be made thinner like we see in the Linux world.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I think virtualization will become a niche platform technology in a few years, and if MS keep at their current direction, we might even see a common platform, where MS Windows 25 and Linux have the same base kernel and can easily run in the same container. We'll see
I agree. Full virtualization and even the Windows kernel itself have seen their day. The future is lighter, faster, and more converged.
-
For those not familiar with Firecracker, it's a container (Type C) virtualization technology focused on server-less computing like AWS Lambda. It is open source under Apache 2.0 and sponsored by Amazon.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
KVM's focus is definitely Windows workloads that are bloated and can't be made thinner like we see in the Linux world.
Not really, I see a lot of KVM on large public openstack deployments (think digitalocean or vultr or whatever) and also in private DCs. Been migrating customers from VMWare and Xen to KVM for years, probably tens of thousands of hosts, if not hundreds, with most of those workloads being Linux VMs. That is pretty much where containers are taking a bit out of all other hypervisors' pie, with workloads becoming shorter lived and more ad-hoc and micro-servicy, this tendency will only grow.
-
@scottalanmiller its basically just a replacement for QEMU, still using the same KVM, but more lightweight and much faster. Less features of course. So you end up with a lightweight (compared to QEMU) emulation plus a KVM hypervisor.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
KVM's focus is definitely Windows workloads that are bloated and can't be made thinner like we see in the Linux world.
Not really, I see a lot of KVM on large public openstack deployments (think digitalocean or vultr or whatever) and also in private DCs.
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Been migrating customers from VMWare and Xen to KVM for years, probably tens of thousands of hosts, if not hundreds, with most of those workloads being Linux VMs.
Most, but Windows is a taint here. Any Windows means you need KVM. Even if only one out of thousands of workloads. Unless you want different solutions for different workloads, which a lot of places want to avoid.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
No, not at all. There is a fair bit of Windows used here and there, but the main guest OS is Linux.
LXC is actually very rare in production (LXD is even rare-er).
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
LXC is actually very rare in production (LXD is even rare-er).
Because nearly everyone has Windows somewhere. Only completely Windows-less shops can consider a pure LXC environment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most, but Windows is a taint here. Any Windows means you need KVM. Even if only one out of thousands of workloads. Unless you want different solutions for different workloads, which a lot of places want to avoid.
A cloud provider can potentially create a system where if you pick Linux you get a container and if you pick Windows you get a VM, sure. But that's not how this is done today. Most cloud providers don't even touch containers outside a container specific system, like AKS/GKE (or the old school VPS based on Parallels/OVZ). Instead they simply give you a choice of guest OS and instance type, and you always get a proper VM.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Most of those are Windows focused. If they didn't want to support Windows, they'd go to LXC. KVM is a lot of overhead that only makes sense when Windows is in their game plans, or potentially ISO support. Vultr and OpenStack are almost completely doing this because of their Windows options. IMHO
No, not at all. There is a fair bit of Windows used here and there, but the main guest OS is Linux.
Here and there... that requires that it be accommodated. Like I said, Windows is a taint. Any Windows means you have to do something special to handle it.
