Hey guys, we have recently announced JUKE, which gives you machine containers with native persistent storage and networking, including across clouds
It would be great to get your inputs and thoughts on the tool
Here is some info:
http://www.htbase.com/index.php/juke/
If interested, send me a message and Im happy to get you the download link
Thanks in advance
Bruno
Hey guys, we have recently announced JUKE, which gives you machine containers with native persistent storage and networking, including across clouds
It would be great to get your inputs and thoughts on the tool
Here is some info:
http://www.htbase.com/index.php/juke/
If interested, send me a message and Im happy to get you the download link
Thanks in advance
Bruno
@dafyre Its not free or open source right now. Its charged on a host/node base
Yep, it can be used independently from our hyperconverged solution
@dafyre HTFS from HTBase too! 
@Dashrender Yep, in that configuration we have 24 TB of SSD.
If we added an additional 32TB of HDD (given the fact you would already have 24TB of SSD), it would add around $13,000 to the total cost provided before
@Dashrender Processors are better in our case compared to the original thread.
To add 2 additional years of support, you would just be adding $5K, bringing the total to $76,600
Still a good price when compared
Would you mind if I add HTBase's HyperTask to the comparison?
Four node system with 2x Intel Xen E5-2650v4 per node, 256GB per node, 6TB of SSD per node.
Total cost (including 4 nodes and 3 years support):
$71,600
I think there are quite a few differences from an architecture perspective when you compare XenServer to KVM.
I agree that Xen still wins the performance battle depending on the workload and has more third-party tools available for management, specially for people who are learning that makes a difference.
But I do like the fact that KVM is part of the Kernel already and you can address hardware directly still, and get good performance with VirtIO, so its easier to make changes to it to adapt the hypervisor to what you want it to be or perform
With libvirt, latest I've seen this come more to a personal choice than anything
@tiagom in our case, its OCH ! hehe
OVH would not allow you to virtualize public cloud servers and do live migrations between private and public and between public cloud providers
@scottalanmiller Xen is also great, I think the preference comes from the specific objectives we have and what we are doing with it
@wirestyle22 Asahi for Beer and OCH and KVM for hypervisors!
Hello everyone.
Just joined the community and already see great conversations and topics being discussed.
I live in Toronto, Canada and head the Product and Engineering for a Hyperconvergence/Cloud company
Enjoy discussing all topics related to Network, Virtualization, Cloud, Storage, Pizza and Beer!
@StuartJordan In our case, you have Fortis, which is an end-user interface that you can give to customers.
On Fortis they can create their own VMs, have applications automatically installed and others along with the charge back.
If you would like, we can get you access to an aws instance with OCH and you can spin off a server there and start creating VMs in it with OCH
A tool you can leverage is OCH (OneCloud Hypervisor) from HTBase, which allows you to actually:
- Virtualize cloud servers: So instead of creating multiple servers in Google Cloud or AWS, you can create one large one and create virtual machines in it. Just by doing this, you save around 45% in costs
- Live migration: OCH allows you to move VMs between private and cloud environments as well as between cloud environments live, so it takes you out of that "which provider should I use?" question. If you think GCE is better, have your VMs run there, or if tomorrow AWS is cheaper, get them moved to AWS
@Breffni-Potter For sure, here is a demo:
OCH:
Youtube Video
Recorded webcast on customer case:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5007994365658541058
Another option I could say is the OneCloud Hypervisor (OCH) from HTBase:
[www.htbase.com/och](link url)
It gives you the capability of doing different things:
- Virtualize cloud servers: So instead of creating 8 servers in AWS with 10GB of memory, you can get 1 server with 100GB of memory and create your virtual machines in that one AWS server. Just by doing that, you save around 40-45% on the cloud costs
- Live migration: With OCH, you can do live migration between your private environment and the public cloud provider as well as between public cloud providers. That gives you the freedom to move your VMs whenever you have better performance or price. Getting out that lock on "which vendor should we go with"
When you do live migrations of your VMs, OCH moves the VM completely (network, compute and storage) so you dont need to make any changes to your VM to make it work
OCH can be run between your private environment and public cloud, building a hybrid cloud environment or just purely in the cloud
Happy to provide more info
@aaronstuder I know I may be quite late to the game but the other option companies are doing is using the hyperconverged solution from HTBase (www.htbase.com)
With that, you can build a cloud environment utilizing existing or new hardware that you may acquire as well as it comes with an "AWS like" panel where your clients can go online, create their own virtual machines and have total control of that.
Along with that "AWS like" panel, called Fortis, you get an Application Market, where you can provide customers with customized applications that can be installed automatically as they create their vms. There is a charge back mechanism and others.
And, if you need to scale and want to use cloud servers, there is OCH, the OneCloud Hypervisor, that allows you to get resources from cloud providers such as AWS and GCE and make them work as internal infrastructure for you (www.htbase.com/och)