+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
Thin Client and Virtual Machines Thread, Virt. Win Server benchmarks - VMWARE vs KVM vs XEN - where are they? in Technical; bossman: I know you like Xen but from all the benchmarks I've looked at KVM has the edge over Xen ...
  1. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    94
    Thank Post
    8
    Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
    Rep Power
    27
    bossman:

    I know you like Xen but from all the benchmarks I've looked at KVM has the edge over Xen in most cases

    Also, Redhat are the big boys in Enterprise Linux and they've put their money behind KVM and so when they get a management inteface that us Linux and Mac users can use too without resorting to having a VM just to run IE in then I'll take them much more serioiusly as a competitor - but I may well be swayed on RHEV yet if CyberNerd tells me what I'd like to hear about the alternate interface.

    vmware also have little love for Linux admins too its seems - lunacy when you consider how prevalent the penguin is in the server room!

  2. #17


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by danboid View Post
    CyberNerd:

    So if IE gives you the plague or you're running a decent OS/browser, what are your options for managing RHEV under 3.0? I've heard the alternate method, whatever that is (cli/java?) is unsupported in EV 3.0. Does the alternate manager work well enough to use on a daily basis already or are we waiting on 3.1 for a sane (post MS management setup?
    I've not looked into alternative GUI's for RHEV. I already need to run windows (in a kvm on my local machine) and have some windows servers anyway so it isn't a big enough issue for me.
    Redhat will rewrite the manager into jboss at some stage anyway. TBH the cost of a single windows license shouldn't be a deal breaker for what you get compared to the other virtualisation competition, it's all open source anyway so if your determined you can find a way. Personally I think you should look at ovirt if you want to do it entirely for 'free'

    Quote Originally Posted by danboid View Post
    MS aren't quite as hostile as they used to be towards unix, linux and free software but its still a very real threat.
    MS are only hostile to free software that doesn't run on their singularity. MS had their own unix - xenix:


    Xenix_Screensnap.PNG


    Quote Originally Posted by danboid View Post
    but I may well be swayed on RHEV yet if CyberNerd tells me what I'd like to hear about the alternate interface.
    !
    sorry.
    Last edited by CyberNerd; 1st July 2012 at 12:44 AM.

  3. #18

    bossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,035
    Thank Post
    1,262
    Thanked 1,107 Times in 785 Posts
    Rep Power
    338
    @danboid:

    hehe!
    RedHat is your tool of choice then, they like MS have a walled garden do they not and they too can tie you into services if they feel that way inclined.

    Yes I do like Xenserver but then some like VMWare and Hyper-V alomg with many others and there choice is built on their preferences like so many others on here, there is never a solid one choice for all and that is what makes the choosing so difficult in cases of this kind.

    I admire your thinking in going forward and as you have been using Linux since 96 then I, like you, would definately stick to what you know best, good luck with your choice, no doubt that there will be another open source hypervisor to compare as there seems to be plenty out there.

  4. #19


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by bossman View Post
    RedHat is your tool of choice then, they like MS have a walled garden do they not and they too can tie you into services if they feel that way inclined.
    There is a big difference here - With Redhat you pay for the support and updates, the software is free and opensource. Your welcome to run opensource equivalents of satellite and RHEV and you can migrate between the two. The lock in with MS is entirely different; you pay for the product, pay again for support and there is no chance that you can migrate to/from the opensource version.
    Last edited by CyberNerd; 1st July 2012 at 12:53 AM.

  5. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    94
    Thank Post
    8
    Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
    Rep Power
    27
    Here's a pretty recent example of MS's hostility to free software beyond just free software that doesn't run on Windows. MS prohibits GPL and equivalent free software and libraries from its Windows marketplace:

    Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace | ITProPortal.com

  6. #21


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    9,809
    Thank Post
    262
    Thanked 2,969 Times in 2,183 Posts
    Rep Power
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by danboid View Post
    Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace | ITProPortal
    Typical sensationalist headline and factually incorrect article.

    Microsoft isn’t banning open source from its Windows Phone Marketplace
    A number of misleading stories have surfaced recently claiming that Microsoft has banned open source from its Windows Phone Marketplace.

    This isn’t the case. Articles such as “Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace” and “Microsoft banishes open source from the Marketplace” cropped up after a blog post Red Hat employee Jan Wildeboer. The post pointed towards Microsoft’s omission of GPLv3 licensed software in its Windows Phone Marketplace. This omission isn’t Microsoft’s choice however. The Next Web points to a great post from Slashdot that explains the problem:

    "The article seems to ignore the rather obvious point that the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 themselves forbid using covered software in app stores that apply anti-circumvention measures, such as the Windows Phone app store or the Apple App Store. This is one of the improvements in the GPL between versions 2 and 3. The restriction is specific to GPLv3 licenses, and does not apply to GPLv2 licenses, nor to Apache, nor to BSD.

    It’s always fun to paint Microsoft as the big villain, but what’s going on here is what the FSF intended when they added the anti-tivoization clause to the GPL. That is to say, it’s a good thing. If you want to run GPLv3 software in a Tivoized device, you have to jailbreak it first. You can’t sell GPLv3 software in an app store unless the app store meets the restrictions of the GPL, and Microsoft’s App Store does not.

    Now, one could turn around and say that Microsoft is bad for having an App store that violates the GPL, but given how cooperative Microsoft has been with jailbreakers, I really don’t think one would have a rhetorical leg to stand on with this argument. It would work much better against Apple." (Source)
    Some have interpreted the license even more pessimistically—as banning all open source projects—but this seems inaccurate. It is specifically the requirement to distribute source code (etc.) that is at issue here. Permissive licenses such as the BSD and MIT licenses provide the option of source code distribution, but do not make it compulsory.

    [...]

    Every application downloaded from Marketplace is cryptographically signed, and the handsets will not permit installation of any applications that lack suitable signatures. This means that derived works based on GPL-protected projects are, in a sense, useless: users do not have unfettered access to install them.

    Such a situation was permitted under the terms of GPLv2, but some within the Free Software community regarded this kind of usage as undesirable. One of the objectives of GPLv3 was to prohibit the use of DRM in this way. (Source)

  7. #22


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    9,809
    Thank Post
    262
    Thanked 2,969 Times in 2,183 Posts
    Rep Power
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    The lock in with MS is entirely different; you pay for the product, pay again for support and there is no chance that you can migrate to/from the opensource version.
    There's nothing stopping you from migrating your VMs across to RHEV from Hyper-V, although it would be better if the conversion was officially supported by virt-v2v. You make it sound like it is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    MS had their own unix - xenix:
    So did a lot of other companies. What about HP/UX, AIX, Solaris, ULTRIX, Tru64, System III/V, IRIX and so on?

  8. #23


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    9,809
    Thank Post
    262
    Thanked 2,969 Times in 2,183 Posts
    Rep Power
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by danboid View Post
    OVirt seems to be the management console of choice for KVM
    Have you seen Archipel? That looks very slick.



    From what I have read, ConVirt and CloudStack are meant to be the most feature complete of the free web frontends. Not sure if that's true or not.

  9. #24


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    There's nothing stopping you from migrating your VMs across to RHEV from Hyper-V, although it would be better if the conversion was officially supported by virt-v2v. You make it sound like it is impossible.
    I wasn't referring to migrating virtual machines - I was answering the point that Redhat is walled garden like MS and they tie you into their product. Infact that isn't remotely true because you don't have to pay to use their software unless you want the support/updates, your quite welcome to use a clone of it.

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    94
    Thank Post
    8
    Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
    Rep Power
    27
    Arthur:

    OK so its just GPL 3 software thats incompat. with the MS market then is it? I wouldn't know as I've never used it and I obviously never read any corrections to the article I linked to. Regardless, having spent most of my 3 decades using and observing MS I've seen all their tricks which they continue to pull and I as a result I only ever use or implement MS where there is no other realistic option. Truth of the matter is that even if MS did fully open source Windows 8 (never going to happen) I would still have zero interest in MSs warped concept of where computing should be headed. Win 8 is just ONE (big) example of how MSs dominion over IT frustrates me but I could provide a sizeable tome of moans over probs with MS apps that I know will never be fixed and there is no option for myself or a 3rd party to fix the sinking ship MS as there is with FOSS. If you like MS and their treatment of you and your machines - you have every right to carry on subjecting yourself to it and paying dearly for it - I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just explaining how I see it.

    MS xenix I was aware of and it proves nothing - have we forgotten about the SCO cases which was basically a front for MS trying to prove they owned unix too? Anyway, lets drop the MS bashing as they don't need any help in making themselves look bad - back to virtualisation!

    Archipel looks promising but its it beta and seems to be trailing most of the other solutions mentioned here as its web page states it doesn't have HA clustering yet, which is one feature I do want.

    Cloudstack and openstack seem to offer more features than say proxmox but they're obviously aimed at large enterprise deployments of 1000's of hosts and vms - they sound like a pain to set up and I don't think I'll need all those features if I'm only managing say 20-30 guests over a 2 or 3 hosts. There is stackops.org which claims to be an easier to install distro of openstack but I've not found many details or any comparisons of that to say proxmox.

    Purely going off feedback, comments and reports given across the web, in forums etc. it would seem proxmox is the easiest virtualisation solution to set up and maintain as I've heard nothing but praise for it which I cannot say about vmware, hyper-v, rhev and xenserver.
    Last edited by danboid; 1st July 2012 at 12:17 PM.

  11. #26

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,821
    Thank Post
    272
    Thanked 1,140 Times in 1,036 Posts
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Have you seen Archipel? That looks very slick.



    From what I have read, ConVirt and CloudStack are meant to be the most feature complete of the free web frontends. Not sure if that's true or not.
    Cloud Stack is very good - was testing it for a while before i left running on 4 dl360's with 100gb ram in each. only downside is it requires a dedicated management server (so another physical box not running vms)

  12. 2 Thanks to glennda:

    Arthur (1st July 2012), cpjitservices (3rd July 2012)

  13. #27
    cpjitservices's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hessle
    Posts
    2,605
    Thank Post
    544
    Thanked 301 Times in 277 Posts
    Rep Power
    85
    I have tried Proxmox here and wasnt that impressed - ran it for a few weeks then binned it for KVM, we have KVM across the board here with oVirt for management.

    On my workstation (CentOS 5) I am using Xen for testing VM's.

  14. Thanks to cpjitservices from:

    bossman (4th July 2012)



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20th May 2010, 06:18 PM
  2. Lenovo Vs. Stone Vs. Dell Vs. RM
    By AshF in forum Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 27th April 2007, 09:18 PM
  3. primary wins server not available
    By Uraken in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd March 2007, 10:33 AM
  4. VPN showdown: IPSec vs SSL vs client-less SSL
    By ITWombat in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25th September 2006, 10:35 PM
  5. server benchmarks
    By browolf in forum Hardware
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14th October 2005, 11:03 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •