<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/19/2014 12:14 PM, ANSA SERVERS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4B5E863F12AF3A48B7ACE3DE2B228B902D6BCCDD@EXCHANGE-3.ANSA.WAN"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">I am having a “discussion” with my network
engineer and want to know what virtualization platforms people
use, has used and like. For example we use OpenVZ / XEN because
its stood the test of time and works flawlessly but has used
VMWARE and HyperV. My engineer thinks that XEN / OPENVZ is not
proper hosting technology</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your <b>constructive</b> thoughts /
opinions? </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Matthew,<br>
<br>
As usual, the answer is "It depends". I find that most people
(including me) typically say "X is not a proper Y" when they are
very familiar with Z and would rather stick with Z than shift to X.
<ul>
<li>We use a cheap VPS from a hosting service in California to run
a couple of external monitoring services for our network; it
uses OpenVZ, and I've been really happy with it because it
performs well, especially on the I/O side, and is cheap and
cheerful.</li>
<li>We use VMware for our internal servers because its management
tools are easy for the PHB to work out. It probably has the
most mature suite of virtualisation management tools, but Citrix
XenServer and Microsoft Hyper-V shouldn't be too far off for 90%
of customers.<br>
</li>
<li>I use the open source version of Xen (with paravirtualisation
rather than full virtualisation) for my home office server
because it's available with Debian Linux, there are good command
line tools for managing it, and it seems to me to have lower
overhead than KVM. I support a number of customers who use KVM
and VMware.<br>
</li>
<li>Amazon is built on Xen (as others have pointed out), and
Oracle VM was originally (and I think still is).</li>
<li>Red Hat's solution is based on KVM, and it's the default on
OpenStack.<br>
</li>
<li>Some newer Linux-based cloud management solutions are built on
LXC (Linux kernel containers - closer to OpenVZ than any of the
other mentioned solutions), for example Docker.</li>
<li>I would assume that VMware's and Microsoft's public clouds are
based on their respective hypervisors.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>If I were building a new Netflix on a public cloud today, I'd
check out Docker. If I were building an enterprise virtualisation
farm, I'd probably go with VMware. If I were building a hosting
service that's not quite cloud, I'd probably give Xen, OpenVZ, and
Hyper-V a run through their paces and see which one worked best.
If I were buying it all from someone else, I wouldn't care and
would go for the one that best suited my functionality and
availability requirements.<br>
</p>
<p>In short, all of them are solid; use what works for you.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>