[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] Jan 17 meeting topic
- Subject: [ale] Jan 17 meeting topic
- From: jdp at algoloma.com (JD)
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:48:19 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAPfJb3qXDHYk_qabJDKL=gr6Kv703sTRSmZU=HMt4_5OY-TF2Q@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAEo=5Pw4Qies5LebdstCB7cU2AwvMzu17AeO7-sMMHuS-amq1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPfJb3qXDHYk_qabJDKL=gr6Kv703sTRSmZU=HMt4_5OY-TF2Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/15/2013 01:37 PM, Chuck Payne wrote:
> Shame you couldn't have compare them to KVM and Vmware.
Any comparison would be superficial in a 3 hour attempt. Running virtual
servers in an enterprise is not that simple.
I can help with a 2 min comparison:
* If you are a 90% Microsoft Server company, use either VMware ESXi or whatever
Microsoft sells
* If you are mostly a Linux shop, the choices become more complex depending on
your workloads, how important support from different vendors is, type of
virtualization deployed, current admin skillsets and budget.
I looked at ovirt and for a small shop, the overhead seemed abusive, just use
virt-manager instead for the KVM needs. For large scale operations, all of the
management interfaces pretty much suck to setup and have complex moving parts.
Learn about them in a lab and don't believe all the hype.
If you are looking for a management tool that works both internally and with
your extended cloud servers at different providers, look for a standard back-end
that does both with a multitude of different clouds:
https://deltacloud.apache.org/ is an example, but there are others.
Only use VirtualBox for desktops, not servers. NEVER servers. Also, if you are a
business using VirtualBox, please read the license agreement carefully for each
part that you use - especially the guest additions.
If the company runs a mix of Linux and Windows and needs a mixed virtualization
solution, then it becomes less clear what the best answers are. I'm available
for paid consultations. ;)
My 2 minutes are up.