Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer
-
@scottalanmiller said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
@Dashrender said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
It was mainly about - wanting to learn Hyper-V.
Ah, that's totally different, and perfectly fine. But state that as the reason, not something else. If you had "no AD and only Linux workloads" it would actually make Hyper-V make more sense than it does here.
I take it you have witnessed this or have read papers where people have shown that Hyper-V is better for linux workloads and KVM is better for Windows ones?
-
@Dashrender said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
@Dashrender said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
It was mainly about - wanting to learn Hyper-V.
Ah, that's totally different, and perfectly fine. But state that as the reason, not something else. If you had "no AD and only Linux workloads" it would actually make Hyper-V make more sense than it does here.
I take it you have witnessed this or have read papers where people have shown that Hyper-V is better for linux workloads and KVM is better for Windows ones?
They are about even for Linux, but KVM is the best for Windows. That's measured, yes.
-
The margins are small, but KVM has focused on Windows performance because Xen focused to have on Linux performance back in the day (because of Paravirtualization.)
-
So am I wrong for running both linux and windows workloads on hyper-v?
-
@murpheous said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
So am I wrong for running both linux and windows workloads on hyper-v?
Not at all. The hypervisor has very little effect on the guest performance. There are margins that you can stretch for if you need the absolute best possible performance for a specific workload. Which may sway your decision.
But you should choose your hypervisor based on the experience and familiarity with the tools you use regularly.
-
@murpheous said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
So am I wrong for running both linux and windows workloads on hyper-v?
No, not wrong at all. It would be wrong if your sole reason for using Hyper-V was because you had Windows workloads.
There are loads of reasons to use Hyper-V, it's just that that one reason isn't one of them.
-
I would never use XCP-NG in production because it is too new and has no valid ecosystem yet.
It is now XenServer. it was forked and subsequently modified.
Modified by smart people who had a bad business model get totally ruined by the XenServer change.
The new business model driving XCP-NG is what I don't trust.
This is no different than any other FOSS solution getting forked and subsequently modified. The ownCloud/Nextcloud split was similar. In that case I moved with Nextcloud because that was the better business model, the I felt would be the better support choice.
-
@JaredBusch said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
The ownCloud/Nextcloud split was similar.
Kind of, but a bit different. NC took the team and just changed the name and model.
XCP-NG is a new team and new model. Not one I'd be worried about as the underlying pieces are pretty portable, but from a vendor standpoint certainly more risky.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
NC took the team and just changed the name and model.
Yes, that is why it was a different decision to use the new fork.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
XCP-NG is a new team and new model.
The XCP-NG team is a team that had a horrible business model that they were trying to implement around XenServer (XOA). Great concept, poor business model.
-
@JaredBusch said in Dashrender why did you migrate to Hyper-V from XenServer:
The XCP-NG team is a team that had a horrible business model that they were trying to implement around XenServer (XOA). Great concept, poor business model.
I wish them well but they are fighting a few things...
-
Citrix couldn't make any real money even when they charged more and people were taking the product seriously.
-
Last time I checked they were just replacing some management components and packaging some storage stuff. They are not investing in upstream and there's a lot of... changes coming in hardware that are going to require non-trivial investments for hypervisors to remain relevant.
The real problem with Xen is upstream investment is drying up. Citrix has pulled back, Amazon and other cloud providers have moved on to KVM, SuSE doesn't even market virtualization (SAP HANA support, containers, OS is as close to bare metal as they get). Outside of some people in ARM/automotive virtualization I haven't seen anyone picking it up for net new projects. In the enterprise Oracle is the only champion of it these days. KVM won the open source hypervisor war (although at this point does anyone really care?)
-
