Hypervisor, hypervisor - who's got the best hypervisor?
-
@Dashrender I am still currently producing Fulls using NAUBackup for my production VM's. Because and only because I haven't completed the XO build with proper equipment.
It works, but takes up way more storage. Also it's free.
XO (from the sources) is free, and has Delta functionality. I'll likely be disabling the NAUBackup Crontab job shortly once I get this XO build up to what I find comfortable.
But you should totally check out both, they each have their own merits.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
The free version.
-
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
Right, that makes sense.
-
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
It counts as building it when you double click to install right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
You do have to type npm build
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
Agent Based backups defeat the purpose of a virtualized infrastructure.
-
I'm just confused now.
In windows, I download an EXE, MSI, etc and double click on it and it asks me some questions and then installs itself.
Deploying from Source definitely (to me) sounds like you will have C or whatever, code that needs to be compiled, then deployed to the proper directories to be installed.
So that's not what is happening when you Deploy from Source? Instead you get pre compiled files that you simply copy to the needed locations (through a script I assume) and then run the installer (basically something that helps you run configure the app?
So what is it called when you really do have to download the actual C code and compile before deploying?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
Agent Based backups defeat the purpose of a virtualized infrastructure.
I see both sides of that coin.
-
@JaredBusch This is the best sentence about agent solutions I ever heard.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
No, you have to download them first.
Consider WordPress. The full install is literally just copying it into place. There isn't even the Windows notion of needing to double click!
So if copying is building. What would the Windows world be? What is double the effort of building?
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
You do have to type npm build
Not for NodeBB. Just copy and done.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
No, you have to download them first.
Consider WordPress. The full install is literally just copying it into place. There isn't even the Windows notion of needing to double click!
So if copying is building. What would the Windows world be? What is double the effort of building?
It is pretty much double the effort of everything else...
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
Agent Based backups defeat the purpose of a virtualized infrastructure.
That seems a bit extreme. Agentless has a lot of advantages but isn't the point or the reason for virtualization and is often a pretty trivial benefit. As they get better, they tend to win over agent-based. But without agentless backups, we'd use virtualization just the same. It's a trivial side show really.
-
@Dashrender said:
So what is it called when you really do have to download the actual C code and compile before deploying?
THAT is called "compiling" or "building from source." That's what people normally mean when they say building and pretty much no one does that in a business setting for anything. There are exceptions, but I can't think of one.
-
@Dashrender said:
Deploying from Source definitely (to me) sounds like you will have C or whatever, code that needs to be compiled, then deployed to the proper directories to be installed.
No, it just means copy. Like.... really, just copy it where you want it to be (unless it is compressed, obviously, then you need to uncompress it first.)
WordPress is a perfect example. If you have a compressed source, you just download wherever you want it and uncompress it. Done.
But if you have WordPress uncompressed, you just copy it where you want it. Done.
Seriously. Just copying.
