Virtualization Host
-
@irj I was told the application can be installed on bare metal or they can provide an OVA. I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
-
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
@irj It requires 10g networking to the data repository for performing analytics on collected data. There will be large amounts of data eventually. The software developer requires 8 cores and 32g of ram minimum. I don't see how that much compute can be done in containers. I don't use them so I can't speculate on how well or not it would work.
10g network to the data repository? That shouldn't even come into the conversation here, at all, ever. Single server should be local storage only, I can almost guarantee this application is not anything special that would change that standard rule. If they have to have shared storage, I'd use another VM on the host with an NFS share.
As for the choice of hypervisor to use, either KVM or Proxmox should be fine. Converting the virtual drives will be the same for either one.
Or just tell them your running bare metal and use a VM anyway if you don't want to deal with converting the vdisk.
-
@travisdh1 Yes, this will be on one host with internal storage. The data will reside in another VM on the same host. They wanted a 10g network if the data was to reside on a NAS or other repository. I will most likely have the backups on one of the existing hosts at another location.
-
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
One thing i can't remember seeing in most threads where people are suggesting KVM, Proxmox, VMWare. Is where will the support come from.
e.g. if i install production VM's on Proxmox or KVM and something crapped out. Who would i turn to as with most thing Linux i have no clue, i can google but with something like a hypervisor? At least with VMWare i have someone to call and work through the issues. -
@hobbit666 said in Virtualization Host:
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
One thing i can't remember seeing in most threads where people are suggesting KVM, Proxmox, VMWare. Is where will the support come from.
e.g. if i install production VM's on Proxmox or KVM and something crapped out. Who would i turn to as with most thing Linux i have no clue, i can google but with something like a hypervisor? At least with VMWare i have someone to call and work through the issues.Great question - I'm assuming you could hire NTG for support - or any number of other shops around the globe that support Proxmox or KVM. You'd just want to get one in place ASAP.
-
@dashrender said in Virtualization Host:
@hobbit666 said in Virtualization Host:
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
One thing i can't remember seeing in most threads where people are suggesting KVM, Proxmox, VMWare. Is where will the support come from.
e.g. if i install production VM's on Proxmox or KVM and something crapped out. Who would i turn to as with most thing Linux i have no clue, i can google but with something like a hypervisor? At least with VMWare i have someone to call and work through the issues.Great question - I'm assuming you could hire NTG for support - or any number of other shops around the globe that support Proxmox or KVM. You'd just want to get one in place ASAP.
While I may not be ‘directly attached’ to NTG any more, I’m fairly certain that @scottalanmiller and the NTGcrew would be happy and agreeable to assist.
-
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
I also considered Proxmox, mainly because I could utilize the backup server. I just have mixed feelings about Proxmox over vanilla KVM.
We use both but generally prefer ProxMox.
-
@dashrender said in Virtualization Host:
@hobbit666 said in Virtualization Host:
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
One thing i can't remember seeing in most threads where people are suggesting KVM, Proxmox, VMWare. Is where will the support come from.
e.g. if i install production VM's on Proxmox or KVM and something crapped out. Who would i turn to as with most thing Linux i have no clue, i can google but with something like a hypervisor? At least with VMWare i have someone to call and work through the issues.Great question - I'm assuming you could hire NTG for support - or any number of other shops around the globe that support Proxmox or KVM. You'd just want to get one in place ASAP.
For sure! We do ProxMox, KVM, and Ubuntu support every day. It's part of our bread and butter. In fact, I'm working on exactly that combo this morning for a new customer!
-
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
@irj I was told the application can be installed on bare metal or they can provide an OVA. I just can't decide if it is worth the added expense of VMWare or just to use KVM.
Worth the added expense? VMware is a negative here, even if free. Harder to manage, more to go wrong, fewer features. Unless they absolutely require it, I'd avoid it. Not that VMware is bad, but until you are paying the big dollars for their biggest features, what you get doesn't keep up in any way with the other three players.
-
@hobbit666 said in Virtualization Host:
One thing i can't remember seeing in most threads where people are suggesting KVM, Proxmox, VMWare. Is where will the support come from.
e.g. if i install production VM's on Proxmox or KVM and something crapped out. Who would i turn to as with most thing Linux i have no clue, i can google but with something like a hypervisor? At least with VMWare i have someone to call and work through the issues.That's because there is no need. Support is broadly available from just about anywhere. That's the strength of these kinds of solutions. Linux has the best support of anything anywhere, the availability of top notch support is the absolute number one reason to run it over things like Windows.
VMware ONLY offers support if you pay, and only then if you pay more than the basic rate. And then the support is limited to their one tiny product that mostly only needs support to deal with their licensing that you don't have with other products.
I've dealt with VMware support, and we had to support them as the customer because we knew their product more than they did. Isolated case, but what were we paying for?
With Windows, support is the one reason we always say to rule it out. Of all products in the universe, nothing is harder to support because MS themselves don't provide any real support, and getting third party support is all but impossible because everyone, everywhere is an MS reseller and claims to provide support but just do the basics that anyone can do and then call MS and then just give up and the person screwed is the customer who thought that there was a support network somewhere in the background.
Support is the key to avoid MS and VMware and look at Ubuntu and KVM. If support matters to you then nothing should be more on your radar.
-
@irj said in Virtualization Host:
It's extremely shitty development practice for the devs to have any concern about hypervisor. Put it on Docker and use on any platform on prem or in the cloud.
Doesn't sound like its the devs. Sounds like it is a packaging department who just focused on the silliest of all options and nothing else.
-
@brandon220 said in Virtualization Host:
@irj It requires 10g networking to the data repository for performing analytics on collected data. There will be large amounts of data eventually. The software developer requires 8 cores and 32g of ram minimum. I don't see how that much compute can be done in containers. I don't use them so I can't speculate on how well or not it would work.
Containers can (and do) do anything bare metal can do. Literally, one to one. Containers match bare metal. VMs have slightly more overhead, but even for VMs the numbers you are quoting are tiny. We had VMs doing 1TB of RAM, hundreds of cores.... a decade ago and it wasn't a big deal even then.
-
@gjacobse said in Virtualization Host:
What is the reason for requiring VMware? Is the OVA file that specific?
I haven’t used KVM yet, but I’d go that route as you’ll only have *nix workload.
They aren't requiring it. Someone in packaging just decided that VMware users needed extra support compared to users of other hypervisors, and honestly, that makes sense. People running VMware generally lack the experience of people running KVM, Xen, or HyperV and are the least likely to be able to install and support an operating system on their own. So they make an extra easy "we do it all for you" path for those customers. They don't want to lose customers just because they required the customer to install software for themselves.
This is similar to having Dell / HPE / Lenovo pre-install your RAID and Windows. Of course it's generic and never, ever should a production customer not re-install themselves to document, test, and set everything up properly. But the average customer is just skating by and doesn't even know how to install Windows... so they just leave it. The server vendors have always placated those customers because it makes business sense.
Same thing here.
-
@scottalanmiller
That makes sense.
