http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2008/qumranet.html
I am sure most people would have already seen this, but posting for those who havent already.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2008/qumranet.html
I am sure most people would have already seen this, but posting for those who havent already.
In a related topic, there is a virtualization SIG:
http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization
The CentOS wiki article for KVM is:
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/KVM (thanks to Scott Robbins for this write-up)
Akemi
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
Mick
Karanbir Singh wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2008/qumranet.html
I am sure most people would have already seen this, but posting for those who havent already.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:44 AM, admin mick@mjhall.org wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
Mick
Who knows? RHEL-6 maybe.. RHEL-5.4? Until the company is integrated, and any closed source code is vetted... its all a mystery.
admin wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
oVirt itself is in beta now - you should be able to get pkgs and try it out NOW. and for most part, it works fine ( in the small scope of testing that I've done personally )
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
admin wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
oVirt itself is in beta now - you should be able to get pkgs and try it out NOW. and for most part, it works fine ( in the small scope of testing that I've done personally )
- KB
Now i understand more why Red Hat is touring (in Europe at least) and busy promoting Virtualization : it seems (if i believe the agenda : http://www.europe.redhat.com/promo/business-partner-training/agenda.php) that oVirt is becoming the tool they want to promote (even more than libvirt in a standalone fashion) , at least that was my perception (especially when you read the event invitation email) .. let's see what the future will be but all people following the Fedora line already saw that kvm became prefered over Xen ... and from a Market-Share point-of-view it's also clear that RH had to push something new to compete against Xen (through Citrix XenServer), Vmware, and HyperV ...
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
admin wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
oVirt itself is in beta now - you should be able to get pkgs and try it out NOW. and for most part, it works fine ( in the small scope of testing that I've done personally )
- KB
Now i understand more why Red Hat is touring (in Europe at least) and busy promoting Virtualization : it seems (if i believe the agenda : http://www.europe.redhat.com/promo/business-partner-training/agenda.php) that oVirt is becoming the tool they want to promote (even more than libvirt in a standalone fashion) , at least that was my perception (especially when you read the event invitation email) .. let's see what the future will be but all people following the Fedora line already saw that kvm became prefered over Xen ... and from a Market-Share point-of-view it's also clear that RH had to push something new to compete against Xen (through Citrix XenServer), Vmware, and HyperV ...
Actually Red Hat didn't need to do that for competition reasons. The big problem is that Xen is stuck on an old kernel and not in mainline. It was getting harder and harder to forward port the kernel mods and after 2.6.26 basically became impossible. If Xen spent more energy working inside the main kernel.. I don't think the KVM strategy would have been followed.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:03:17PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
admin wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
oVirt itself is in beta now - you should be able to get pkgs and try it out NOW. and for most part, it works fine ( in the small scope of testing that I've done personally )
- KB
Now i understand more why Red Hat is touring (in Europe at least) and busy promoting Virtualization : it seems (if i believe the agenda : http://www.europe.redhat.com/promo/business-partner-training/agenda.php) that oVirt is becoming the tool they want to promote (even more than libvirt in a standalone fashion) , at least that was my perception (especially when you read the event invitation email) .. let's see what the future will be but all people following the Fedora line already saw that kvm became prefered over Xen ... and from a Market-Share point-of-view it's also clear that RH had to push something new to compete against Xen (through Citrix XenServer), Vmware, and HyperV ...
Actually Red Hat didn't need to do that for competition reasons. The big problem is that Xen is stuck on an old kernel and not in mainline. It was getting harder and harder to forward port the kernel mods and after 2.6.26 basically became impossible. If Xen spent more energy working inside the main kernel.. I don't think the KVM strategy would have been followed.
Xensource seems to have a couple of developers working with upstream Linux now.. upcoming Linux 2.6.27 will have more Xen domU pv_ops features (64b support etc), and they're working with getting Xen dom0 pv_ops support merged in.. some groundwork already sent/submitted for 2.6.28.
More information about upstream/pv_ops Linux Xen kernel: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
Too bad they didn't start working with that stuff earlier :(
-- Pasi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:19:08AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Xensource seems to have a couple of developers working with upstream Linux now.. upcoming Linux 2.6.27 will have more Xen domU pv_ops features (64b support etc), and they're working with getting Xen dom0 pv_ops support merged in.. some groundwork already sent/submitted for 2.6.28.
More information about upstream/pv_ops Linux Xen kernel: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
Too bad they didn't start working with that stuff earlier :(
Unfortunately for them, that's been their track record.
From time to time there's a huge integration effort, but then it "forks"
again, and sometime later you get the full circle thingie...
Rui
We're looking for a virtualisation platform to deploy in our production environment (local government network).
After considering VMWare, we're probably most interested in Xen. We would be using RHEL/CentOS hosts, so I'm wondering how much time and energy to put into Xen if it will be "deprecated" in 12-18 months. The boss has sensibly ruled out KVM/Ovirt for the time being. I guess RH will make sure Xen->KVM migration fairly seamless when the time comes.
My boss seems most interested in a paid XenSource enterprise solution, which apparently runs on CentOS?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
admin wrote:
So when can we expect KVM/Ovirt to ship as RHEL/CentOS's default virtualisation solution?
oVirt itself is in beta now - you should be able to get pkgs and try it out NOW. and for most part, it works fine ( in the small scope of testing that I've done personally )
- KB
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
My boss seems most interested in a paid XenSource enterprise solution, which apparently runs on CentOS?
If you are willing to pay, xensource has nothing on vmware. I have ran both and vmware is far more polished and enterprisable IMHO.
You can't even do a snapshot in xensource yet. Its far to immature for the enterprise and some simple tasks are so laborious.
jlc
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
My boss seems most interested in a paid XenSource enterprise solution, which apparently runs on CentOS?
You can't even do a snapshot in xensource yet.
umm ... xm save (domain-id) (state-file) ... misc copy actions xm restore (state-file)
You are asserting the Xensource lacks what the CentOS supplied xen has? wow
Its far to immature for the enterprise and some simple tasks are so laborious.
'In the begining was the command line ...'
-- Russ herrold
umm ... xm save (domain-id) (state-file) ... misc copy actions xm restore (state-file)
You are asserting the Xensource lacks what the CentOS supplied xen has? wow
How many of those can you do? Can you nest them? Enumerate the steps to add an LV backed ISO sr. Oh, reactivate the LV *every* boot with an init script, cuz uhm, yeah its gonna deactivate it every boot. heh. ....
'In the begining was the command line ...'
-- Russ herrold
But of course, who suggested I use the gui? Its pretty plain to :)
You are asserting the Xensource lacks what the CentOS supplied xen has? wow
I should also state that Xen is the coolest thing I have played with in ages. I don't want to suggest I am not fond of it in any way, I love it and use it. I just don't think the commercial product is polished enough. I really feel some trivial lustre could be massaged into it. If I was shelling out cash, and the choice was vmware or xensource you cant compare. Vmware has been at it a long time and thier product is just so polished and solid.
YMMV, jlc
Some factors swaying my boss towards Xen/XenSource:
On the quotes we've been getting, XenSource would cost half of what VMWare ESX would cost (not the stripped down free download obviously). We are a cash-strapped organisation, so the difference is significant.
We are also looking to move as much of our server infrastructure as possible to a standardised RHEL/CentOS platform, whether as hosts or as guests. VMware runs on RHEL/CentOS of course, but a supported-out-of-the-box-by-the-OS-vendor alternative (like Xen) always has appeal.
My boss is also interested in Citrix for some other stuff they do (virtual clients/application delivery).
For my part, looks like I'm going to learn Xen, then learn KVM.
I am just starting with Xen ... my sandbox is a new Dell PowerEdge 840 with Xeon Quad Core, 4GB RAM and 4 x 750GB HDD on a hardware RAID 5, so far it is all running like a dream.
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
You are asserting the Xensource lacks what the CentOS supplied xen has? wow
I should also state that Xen is the coolest thing I have played with in ages. I don't want to suggest I am not fond of it in any way, I love it and use it. I just don't think the commercial product is polished enough. I really feel some trivial lustre could be massaged into it. If I was shelling out cash, and the choice was vmware or xensource you cant compare. Vmware has been at it a long time and thier product is just so polished and solid.
YMMV, jlc _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On the quotes we've been getting, XenSource would cost half of what VMWare ESX would cost (not the stripped down free download obviously). We are a cash-strapped organisation, so the difference is significant.
Download the free ESXi and give it a whirl. Thats so much good software for free!
jlc
My experience has primarly been with Xen.
I have helped a company successfully deploy Xen on CentOS. They had a really nice cobbler setup and were able to leverage it nicely to make the transition to virtuals easy.
They found our running xen book (http://runningxen.com) a great resource.
Another factor to consider is the application workload and the guest requirements.
Over the last several years, we at Clarkson, have done a lot of performance studies on virtualization systems (as well as writing the book on Xen).
You can find links to much of this work at: http://people.clarkson.edu/~jnm/publications/publications.html http://todddeshane.net/research.html http://xen.cosi.clarkson.edu/
Hope that helps, Cheers, Todd
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:25 AM, admin mick@mjhall.org wrote:
Some factors swaying my boss towards Xen/XenSource:
On the quotes we've been getting, XenSource would cost half of what VMWare ESX would cost (not the stripped down free download obviously). We are a cash-strapped organisation, so the difference is significant.
We are also looking to move as much of our server infrastructure as possible to a standardised RHEL/CentOS platform, whether as hosts or as guests. VMware runs on RHEL/CentOS of course, but a supported-out-of-the-box-by-the-OS-vendor alternative (like Xen) always has appeal.
My boss is also interested in Citrix for some other stuff they do (virtual clients/application delivery).
For my part, looks like I'm going to learn Xen, then learn KVM.
I am just starting with Xen ... my sandbox is a new Dell PowerEdge 840 with Xeon Quad Core, 4GB RAM and 4 x 750GB HDD on a hardware RAID 5, so far it is all running like a dream.
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
You are asserting the Xensource lacks what the CentOS supplied xen has? wow
I should also state that Xen is the coolest thing I have played with in ages. I don't want to suggest I am not fond of it in any way, I love it and use it. I just don't think the commercial product is polished enough. I really feel some trivial lustre could be massaged into it. If I was shelling out cash, and the choice was vmware or xensource you cant compare. Vmware has been at it a long time and thier product is just so polished and solid.
YMMV, jlc _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Todd Deshane wrote:
My experience has primarly been with Xen.
I have helped a company successfully deploy Xen on CentOS. They had a really nice cobbler setup and were able to leverage it nicely to make the transition to virtuals easy.
They found our running xen book (http://runningxen.com) a great resource.
hey -- I have and LIKE that book ;)
Todd
Thanks to you and your team for writing it -- it explained some finer points I did not get from the CentOS provided documentation, man pages, and google searching
-- Russ herrold
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:02 AM, admin wrote:
We're looking for a virtualisation platform to deploy in our production environment (local government network).
After considering VMWare, we're probably most interested in Xen. We would be using RHEL/CentOS hosts, so I'm wondering how much time and energy to put into Xen if it will be "deprecated" in 12-18 months. The boss has sensibly ruled out KVM/Ovirt for the time being. I guess RH will make sure Xen->KVM migration fairly seamless when the time comes.
Xen is not deprecated. The Xen support in EL5 is not going anywhere. The main issue as I understand it is that maintaining Xen is requiring more effort than expected because it has not been integrated into the linux kernel. Meanwhile KVM is already in the upstream kernel. It's not known yet what EL6 will have, but I think the indication from Fedora is that both Xen and KVM will remain supported: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Fedora8VirtQuickStart
I could easily be wrong, though. KVM is certainly the wave of the future, but it's definitely not supported in EL5 (though there is the unsupported CentOS guide at http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/KVM )
Also keep in mind that Red Hat recommends the libvirt tools (virt-manager etc) which abstract Xen or KVM commands. I'm guessing XenSource would want you to use the Xen-specific tools (xm etc).
(By the way, you do realize that VMWare ESXi is free? It comes on servers from several vendors, including Dell and HP. It would be a pain to manage more than about 5-10 servers without the management console which is not free, though.)
Admin wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:32:30 +0930:
I guess RH will make sure Xen->KVM migration fairly seamless when the time comes.
One would really hope so. One would also hope that the para-virtualized performance of KVM is then as good as it is with Xen now. I have to say that I'm quite happy with Xen on CentOS.
Kai
-
admin -
Akemi Yagi -
Fabian Arrotin -
Joseph L. Casale -
Joshua Daniel Franklin -
Kai Schaetzl -
Karanbir Singh -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
R P Herrold -
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Todd Deshane