Re: Debian and OSS vs vSphere

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:33:38 +0000, Jon wrote in message 
<4F4DF0F2.6060205@debian.org>:

> On 29/02/12 08:02, Davide Mirtillo wrote:
> > How should i consider technologies like KVM and openVZ regarding
> > stability? I'm talking about downtimes and maintenance time. I heard
> > multiple opinions on xen being a bad thing to work with, both
> > performance wise and stability wise. I wouldn't want to set this
> > "private cloud" up only to discover it's not production ready!
> 
> My advice would be to stick to technologies which are widely deployed 
> and supported, so ideally things that are in the mainline Kernel, or
> are explicitly supported by a commercial distro, e.g. Red Hat.
> 
> That rules in KVM but rules out OpenVZ.
> 
> There is an argument that virtualisation technologies (Xen, KVM) are
> more heavyweight than container technologies (linux vserver, OpenVZ,
> lxc).  However in my experience and especially with modern hardware,
> this is rarely an issue: for example I run ~100 KVM VMs on top of 5
> year old hosts.

..what kinda hardware?

> I'd suggest going for a virtualisation technology,
> and I'd suggest KVM - unless your management software layer (proxmox
> or whatever) dictates another e.g. Xen in which case the management
> layer is a more important decision.


-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.