@JaredBusch said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
with VMWare at 5k a pop
FFS, you have no idea WTF you are talking about. Stop arguing and go learn. Then you can discuss instead of argue.
This is the product right?
£4712 with VAT... not far out of the 5k I said no?
So where are you saying I'm wrong here?
@JaredBusch said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
with VMWare at 5k a pop
FFS, you have no idea WTF you are talking about. Stop arguing and go learn. Then you can discuss instead of argue.
^ where did I argue? I was asking an actual question... from the quick search I did it was 5k or so per server, maybe not exact... didn't realise I had to provide a detailed quote for a reply on ML!
Chill and have a beer fella - its Friday.
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
"I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
No. You could use hyper-v on its own and match the availability of VMWare site-for-site, with good design. For example, I could use haproxy with multiple IIS servers, VMs, all sitting on multiple hosts, connection to a SQL Server using failover cluster services for the database (no shared storage needed) with multiple lines in etc...
Different design - yes. Less availability than that one same site running VMWare - no.
And your dependency chain is way longer in this setup. The complexity goes through the roof as well. Which while it may be doable, doesn't mean its practical.
At that point you might as well just license ESXi and tell your systems to pool (across multiple sites). Project done.
Why way longer? Two VMs for HAProxy in failover, one on nodeA, one on nodeB, 2 x IIS sitting behing them, one on nodeA, one on nodeB, sql server clustered, one nodeA, one nodeB... not difficult. Just as much reliability as having multiple servers with VMWare at 5k a pop. With VMWare, i'd still need two SQL servers for cluster. I'd still need two IIS, and i'd still likely want haproxy to make sure the traffic will failover between the IIS too...
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
"I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.Hyper-V can't do it without 3rd party software and solutions. The difference with ESXi is you'd have a single point of contact for everything (ESXi). If you wanted these kinds of features in Hyper-V you'd be looking at StarWinds and they'd be your point of contact, assuming you were using the software and not their appliance.
If it was the appliance, they'd be the only people to reach out too.
No. You could use hyper-v on its own and match the availability of VMWare site-for-site, with good design. For example, I could use haproxy with multiple IIS servers, VMs, all sitting on multiple hosts, connection to a SQL Server using failover cluster services for the database (no shared storage needed) with multiple lines in etc...
Different design - yes. Less availability than that one same site running VMWare - no.
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
"I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts."
I interpreted this as something somebody might say to justify using VMware, though it may be the incorrect decision... Maybe that's not what @DustinB3403 meant by it at all
It was an ad-hib attempt as to what a business evaluation of their needs are. Where literally the business cannot have downtime for even a few seconds.
VMware has this kind of capability, it just cost money to get it.
And 99.999% of businesses don't require these kinds of features.
But hyper-v can also do this...
Its more design than buying VMWare.
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
There are other features as well, but vMotion and memory state moves are big items that ESXi has, which might make it the correct solution for a business.
Don't get hung up on the 1 item I've mentioned as the only thing ESXi has.
But that one thing is nothing more than what Hyper-V free has, so it was a poor thing to have mentioned as something that sets VMWare above others...
@bnrstnr said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
vMotion appears to copy the state of a VM from host A to host B, while keeping the VM "live", if host A crashed while running 5 VMs, as stated above, how could it fail over to host B instantaneously in the same exact state?
Agree. I think Dustin missed my point. vMotion offers little more than the standard move feature in the free hyper-v.
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
If the host crashes? So... I have 5 VMs... the host dies.... NOW! vMotion brings them up on host2 instantly, with the exact same in memory and app running etc... no boot?
Correct.
Now that is a nice feature
didn't know that. Impressive with no shared storage. Even in windows cluster, if a node dies with a running VM, when it comes up on Node2... it boots from fresh and lost memory.
So, what the price tag for vMotion?
You can research the pricing, I think it's in the $5000 range per year.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something... Just read this https://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/vmotion.html
The host has to be up for vMotion... as in... not HA. If the host dies now, this second, the admin has not moved the machine = service unavailable. Exactly the same as Hyper-V move.
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
If the host crashes? So... I have 5 VMs... the host dies.... NOW! vMotion brings them up on host2 instantly, with the exact same in memory and app running etc... no boot?
Correct.
Now that is a nice feature didn't know that. Impressive with no shared storage. Even in windows cluster, if a node dies with a running VM, when it comes up on Node2... it boots from fresh and lost memory.
So, what the price tag for vMotion?
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
It does.
If the host crashes? So... I have 5 VMs... the host dies.... NOW! vMotion brings them up on host2 instantly, with the exact same in memory and app running etc... no boot?
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@matteo-nunziati said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@DustinB3403 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I absolutely need vMotion to ensure my systems are up 100% of the time, I have a server infrastructure of 3 or more hosts.
vMotion is live migration + HA? Don't know if it works with SAN or without. but for live migration at least vSAN is required for 100% uptime: share nothing live migration can't work. You can accomplish this other ways:
- KVM has ovirt+gluster
- hyper-v has native starwind
- starwind seems to be available outside windows
- Xen has HA Lizard - I think.
don't know about the setup time and labor, this could be the only discriminant. in Italy vMotion + vSAN is so expensive that I can pay for setup of other solutions and stay in budget.
Maintainance costs is probably another factor. But here others win hands down. RTO and RPO can't be discussed because this is HA.
Can you share some real cases of why you think you have to ditch others for VMWare? just curious. This has been my hypervisors week
The difference is that VMWare has a solution for 100% uptime with "VMware VMotion (which) enables the live migration of running virtual machines from one physical server to another with zero downtime, continuous service availability, and complete transaction integrity."
That is HA without the need for a vSAN or other Highly available storage. The hypervisor has this built in.
... isn't vMotion then exactly the same as in Hyper-V 'Move' then? I can move VMs in Hyper-V from one host, to another, without shared storage, and with 0 downtime.
vMotion sounds just like the move option in Hyper-V. Nothing special. If HostA crashes, does vMotion move the VM to another host instantly without any downtime to service and no shared storage? - Now that would be different...
@scottalanmiller said in The British Navy Runs on Windows XP:
This "defence source" definitely goes against the claim that a new OS was just created for this: "A defence source told the newspaper that some of the on-boar hardware and software "would have been good in 2004" when the carrier was designed, "but now seems rather antiquated"."
Indeed. But with most things, its outdated as soon as you ordered the kit. Probably spinning disks, rather than SSDs - gets hit by a wave in the wrong place and the head on for a few platters move... warship dead! But hey, they are cheaper - just like a particular type of cladding.
@scottalanmiller said in The British Navy Runs on Windows XP:
This might be even worse yet, instead of an OS from a serious OS vendor, they are going with a new, untested, closed, single use case OS from a vendor with no expertise in the space: "“They [the Queen Elizabeth class] will also be the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed, new state-of-the-art operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next ten years. Shared Infrastructure revolutionises the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. By replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, the amount of spares which are required to be carried onboard is reduced, significantly decreasing through-life costs.”
Windows XP would EASILY be better than this.
I actually thought that too. Thousands, if not millions of hours has been put in to XP. All the teams to develop it, all the teams testing it, all the users over the years using it, reporting issues, which are then patched with updates etc... all of that is far beyond what BAE could build. No way has BAE put millions of hours in to this. XP probably could have been a better choice. What has been built is a guess though, as I don't know it, perhaps its so 'different' and 'secure' for 'reasons' that XP, W10, various Linux distros etc were worse...
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@scottalanmiller said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
I let him know that there was more info here because he posted when there was no one online there.
That's not the same thing.
Well, I cross posted the majority from here TO there. So the leeching is more in that direction then.
So you hurt the SEO of 2 websites in one go? Good work.
Cheer up, its Friday!
@Breffni-Potter said in XP: Options in virtualization setup:
@matteo-nunziati said
question time with yourself? you are scaring me....
Yeah if we're going to cross post a link to the source would be useful. It's a bit too much like leeching content otherwise.
Yep, I ready this and thought... Scott is going insane. Split personality maybe cant remember posting the question...!
I actually read this morning that the ship in fact does not use XP, but uses a proprietary system developed for the by BAE Systems. The older ships however do use XP version specifically built for Warships, which eventually will be replaced or overhauled with that developed by BAE.
I agree with Scott here. The wording doesn't help. They mean to have a DC outside of cluster storage, incase of cluster storage issues etc. That doesn't mean it has to be physical. It just has to be off of the csv and can still be a VM. Bad wording.
Even if different hardware entirely from the cluster nodes and storage, the DC could still be a VM on that other box.
@scottalanmiller said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
@Jimmy9008 said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
@scottalanmiller said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
I'd only kick myself for not putting this layer in place if the local server firewall had a hiccup and let something through which the second layer may have prevented.
This ain't good reasoning. You'd kick yourself if you didn't move to Nebraska before your home is hit with a meteor, too. But it is not rational to use "id be sorry if" reasoning. The Windows firewall doesn't hiccup, and even if it does there are loads of other layers of protection. This requires an active attack from the inside, listening services, a vulnerability and more all during the moments that a firewall hiccups. With this logic there is no end of things you would do.
"I'd be sorry" logic bypasses the risk calculation. Yes, you would be sorry. But what is the risk of that happening? Zero. That's the effective risk. So you won't be sorry.
But what you will certainly be sorry about is the wasted time, effort, complexity, risk, outages and ongoing maintenance headaches of a system that protects against nothing.
Yes, I see what you mean. I was being crass about the windows server. Perhaps for specific servers the ACL on the switch would be useful for an added layer, but will have a think. At least we figured out how the N2048 actually works now as the UI didn't make it obvious.
@scottalanmiller said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
@Jimmy9008 said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
@scottalanmiller said in Dell N2048 Switch and IP ACL - I just killed part of my network...:
What's the reason for adding firewalling in the middle of your network? Hostile hosts?
To lock some down, more layers = good. We have for example database server on te1. If we can deny all, but then only allow access to that server for webserver, and wsus... if any machine is compromised or what not, its somewhat restricted.
True, but since you always lock it down in that way on the devices own firewall, is a second copy of that with all of the management complexity that comes with it actually worth anything? There is a point where over the top security becomes self defeating and in this case it is completely redundant but adding a complex and difficult to control copy of something really simple and effective.
These are Windows Server VMs.
I'd rather stop any risk if I can before hitting the local windows firewall, with this additional layer for example, rather than only relying on the Microsoft one which will probably screw you over at the worst time.
How often do Microsoft updates cause issues, very... One of those issues affecting the firewall somehow, on a bad day, boom - something through. Probably wont happen, but Microsoft screw up a lot, so why not try to block that traffic before giving them a chance to mess up your day.
I'd only kick myself for not putting this layer in place if the local server firewall had a hiccup and let something through which the second layer may have prevented.
I've been thinking about it and think it will actually be simple to put in place now I know the particulars of the N2048.
