Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the time-to-trim-the-christmas-list dept.

Cloud 73

judgecorp writes "The OpenStack open source cloud project has removed Hyper-V from its infrastructure as a service (IaaS) framework, saying Microsoft's support for its hypervisor technology is 'broken.' This will embarass Microsoft, as major partners such as Dell and HP support OpenStack, along with service providers such as Internap." Adds reader alphadogg, this "means the code will be removed when the next version of OpenStack, called Essex, is released in the second quarter."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great Ezekile (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38902979)

It cannot be so !

Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903025)

Hard for someone on the outside to know whether it's truly broken or this is a case of "it's too hard, let's leave it out and blame Microsoft".

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903125)

Hard for someone on the outside to know whether it's truly broken or this is a case of "it's too hard, let's leave it out and blame Microsoft".

yeah, because hyper-v is such a stellar product compared to let's say... esxi or even xen.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2, Informative)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903675)

It's easy to just ditch any Microsoft technology. But for once, Hyper-v isn't totally crap. It's a way better than ESXi, and comparable to Xen (in fact, they got their inspiration from working with Xen guys, and the architecture is the same as for Xen). The issue here, btw, wasn't hyper-v itself, just its support inside OpenStack.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903741)

It's easy to just ditch any Microsoft technology. But for once, Hyper-v isn't totally crap. It's a way better than ESXi, and comparable to Xen (in fact, they got their inspiration from working with Xen guys, and the architecture is the same as for Xen). The issue here, btw, wasn't hyper-v itself, just its support inside OpenStack.

i realize what the article was about, i was simply making an observation based on parent comment. however, saying hyper-v is better than esxi is a laughable statement at best. you've clearly been using different products than i have.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903941)

Hyper-v isn't totally crap. It's a way better than ESXi,

Please expand on this....

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (3, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903963)

What are you smoking?

ESXi is miles above Xen at this point, and I'd rather use VirtualBox than Hyper-V. XenServer doesn't even enter the equation.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38907727)

As an hypervisor, Hyper-V isn't too bad. As for functionalities, I really don't know. Bug for ESXi, it's just a Linux domain starting instances just like KVM would, the model is flowed by concept. I would encourage you to read the "why Xen" pdf document written by one of the Xen contributors, and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38907995)

Bare hypervisor concepts and theory aside. If there was an undisputed "best" hypervisor, it would be useless without a good solid supported usable stucture built around it. People are using the entire system, not just a bare hypervisor.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903991)

What specifically makes Hyper-V "way better than ESXi" as you claim?

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904025)

hyper-v isn't totally crap its totally shit compared to vsphere.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (5, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904573)

HyperV has many more dependencies than other virtualization stuff.

For example,.if your host and management client are not in the same AD domain but you want to use MMC to remote manage a HyperV host (say you do not want to allow multiple people to remote desktop to the host), to configure the permissions and other stuff you often have to download and run an _unsupported_ tool: http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/HVRemote [microsoft.com]

Or wade through 5 pages of stuff:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/jhoward/archive/2008/03/28/part-1-hyper-v-remote-management-you-do-not-have-the-requested-permission-to-complete-this-task-contact-the-administrator-of-the-authorization-policy-for-the-computer-computername.aspx [technet.com]

And even so, it often still doesn't work, e.g. the added firewall rules might not work for some stupid reason and you have to turn off the firewalls completely.

In contrast with VMware you need a lot few number of ports opened to do remote management, and you normally won't have problems getting remote management. In fact it's almost a "given" that you'd be mainly using remote management.

HyperV may also not work so well if you're not running Linux guests. Recently a colleague had a problem with a Linux guest- some (ICMP echo) frames/packets were being sent but not others (ARP replies)! I solved it by restarting the hyper-v virtual switch. Perhaps that HyperV server was not updated. Whatever it is, even vmware GSX server years ago caused me fewer problems than HyperV.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904771)

It's easy to just ditch any Microsoft technology. But for once, Hyper-v isn't totally crap. It's a way better than ESXi, and comparable to Xen (in fact, they got their inspiration from working with Xen guys, and the architecture is the same as for Xen). The issue here, btw, wasn't hyper-v itself, just its support inside OpenStack.

It's not that easy to ditch any MS technology - they built their company on tie-in, both for technical reasons and licensing reasons.

Their products work so well together that it's easy to get locked in. You start with MS-Office on Windows, then as your office grows you add a Windows Fileserver and AD server to manage the workstations and an Exchange server since it integrates well with Outlook and Outlook comes free with Office. Your accounting system runs on SQL/Server and you want to see more detailed reports so you add a reporting server. So many people want to see real-time reports so you add a Sharepoint server.

Now you've got a half dozen (or more) Window servers running your office. When it comes time to build your website, well you've already got Windows admins and developers, so .Net is the natural platform to use. You've committed yourself to buying so many CAL's for various products that new servers don't really cost much, certainly not enough to make it worthwhile to hire a Linux admin and start building on open source.

Oh, and hard-core WIndows developers/admins are just like hard-core Mac and Linux developers/admins - they love their platform and don't want to try anything else.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905757)

Uh... Outlook doesn't come "free with office". In fact, the versions of Office with Outlook are much more expensive than those without. Outlook is the killer app in the group. That said, I agree with the rest of your post.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38907415)

Uh... Outlook doesn't come "free with office". In fact, the versions of Office with Outlook are much more expensive than those without. Outlook is the killer app in the group. That said, I agree with the rest of your post.

I'm talking about enterprise licensed Office - I don't know what comes with the consumer/small business Office suites. By the time you're big enough to need an AD server to manage your network, you're big enough for a volume license program.

The "Office Standard 2010" available under their volume licensing program comes with Outlook:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/office2010.aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905917)

Even IF a company decides to ditch Windows, it may not be possible. Tons of web-based stuff, particularly in niche industries still only works with Internet Explorer and ActiveX. The Microsoft monoculture is so wide-spread that migrating away from it can make it difficult to do business.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906909)

Oh, and hard-core WIndows developers/admins are just like hard-core Mac and Linux developers/admins - they love their platform and don't want to try anything else.

Its true. Most companies volunteer for MS lock-in. But good developers don't lock into anything. I'm a php/java developer. I happen to work at a .NET shop.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (3, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903147)

It's not hard to believe Hyper-V is broken

About 2 years ago, the Linux kernel devs threatened to kick the Hyper-V kernel driver out of mainline because of lack of maintenance
The original guys from MS who submitted the code just disappeared, not responding to emails or requests for code clean-up

Not sure what MS's game is with Hyper-V, but they don't seem that interested in making a decent hypervisor....

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903269)

The hypervisor is fine, the Linux drivers have been cleaned up and the maintainer says everything is good now. Microsoft has made the same pledge to OpenStack, that they will work with them to clean up the code.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (-1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903723)

Citation? References?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or? Perhaps you are astroturfing.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903951)

This info has been posting on /. recently. You should stop in more often.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904713)

When asked if he's happy with Microsoft's contributions to Linux, he said "I am very happy with their contributions. The work that they have done on their drivers is amazing. The original driver submission was over 20 thousand lines long. Two new drivers have been added to the codebase, and lots of cleanup, making the final line count around 7 thousand lines. link [arstechnica.com]

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904765)

Oh, and as far as the pledge to fix the Openstack code here's [arstechnica.com] my source. Next time do a bit of research before accusing someone of astroturfing just because the post happens to be pro-microsoft (if you bothered to check my posting history you'd see I'm no MS fanboy).

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904919)

Citation? References?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or? Perhaps you are astroturfing.

I agree he should have provided a supporting link (someone else now have, supporting his claims), but can we please stop this crap with calling everybody with dissenting views and claims for astroturfers? What kind of paranoid world do people live in when they believe that everybody who post something they don't like has to be astroturfing. I have seen people with long posting histories of Linux and OSS support been called astroturfers for trying to have nuanced (or factual) comments that are not all "M$ Suxxor!" Not to mention the delusion of thinking Slashdot comments actually are worth any money or effort from major companies.

Accusations of astroturfing and schilling is the new Godwins law.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38905073)

The irony of this is that you will our #1 shill, bonch, on Jeremiah Cornelius's friends list !

A detective, he ain't ! ^_^

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38913171)

Not to mention the delusion of thinking Slashdot comments actually are worth any money or effort from major companies.

Exactly, I keep emailing Microsoft, Apple and Google volunteering my services as a paid shill, and they never reply.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38913061)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That line only works when both parties agree on the claim being extraordinary and that the evidence being provided is in sufficient quantity to the claim being extraordinary. Also, are you sure you are not a toddler? You seem like someone with limited mental capacity.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38912887)

Looks like they are still at the embrace stage since hyper-v is still a new and relatively small player in the market.
The question is, do you think they would be doing anything at all to facilitate running anything other than windows if they dominated the market? More than likely they would actually go out of their way to make it difficult...

If MS succeed in dominating the virtualization market and eliminating vmware/xen/kvm, you can bet that's what will happen...

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906603)

I'd say its just another victim of Steve Ballmer's "ZOMFG I Want to be the head of Apple soooo bad!" lack of vision. if you look at what MSFT has been doing the past few years its pretty obvious Ballmer has a raging boner for Apple products and wants to be "cool" so bad it hurts. I mean they could have easily taken the business mobile spot away from RIM thanks to AD and Exchange to tie the mobile devices to but instead he has blown boatloads of cash trying to buy his way into the consumer space with abortions like the Kin and Zune. I have no doubt any project there that can't in some way, shape, or form bring the name Apple into the conversation in 3 sentences or less isn't gonna be getting any love and hyper-V is for a market that Apple doesn't give a shit about so Ballmer don't give a shit about.

I'd say the only real hope MSFT has right now is that after Ballmer pours gas on another giant pile of money and lights it up with the trainwreck that is Windows 8, a cell phone UI that requires touch to be worth a fuck yet is gonna be aimed at a market where a good 98%+ of desktops and laptops will NOT be touch enabled will finally cause Ballmer to be forced by the board to 'pursue other interests' and they bring back in someone who knows what the fuck they are doing like Ozzie or Allchin. Frankly Ballmer should have spun off the business division if he wanted to play the "Oh oh oh lets be just like Apple!" game so they could continue to develop what businesses want without having to tie into Steve's "vision" but no, that would require sense. hyper-V sounded like a good idea but as long as the Steve Jobs wannabe is in the big chair it simply won't get the support that it deserves. This is from someone that doesn't own a single Apple product BTW, but even I can see what an obsession Apple has become to Ballmer. If Apple announced they were coming out with an iCrap digital toilet it wouldn't be 60 days before Ballmer would be announcing the WinCrapper, kinda sad really.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (5, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903439)

Here is the key passage from the article, should you read it.

“Ah, never mind. They really don’t care.”

The "They" is Microsoft, and the guy saying it is person Microsoft has a liaison for the project.

Also, it is too hard to maintain code you don't have control over. Microsoft drafted someone else to develop the code, that organization was bought by Citrix who owns Zen Hyper-V, a competing project. Again mentioned in the article.

So, this is not just normal Microsoft Bashing by /. (well, it is) this is something that Microsoft deserves. Microsoft better start focusing on core competencies to support of Enterprise Infrastructure and Windows or it is going to find itself shrinking rapidly.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905001)

Microsoft has an enterprise management tool for Hyper-V, it's called Service Center Virtual Machine Manager and as you mention they've partnered with Citrix to have the ZenServer management tools able to manage Hyper-V, cloudstack is just a third such tool and IMHO the least likely to be used since most shops haven't gone cloud yet.

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903653)

The if you don't know, don't ASSUME that this is propaganda. The reality is that there's not enough contribution to have Hyper-v support up to shape for a release. Though it might work through libvirt. It's just that the hyper-v specific driver is getting away, not the full of hyper-v support. Also, it might well come back if someone cares. Openstack is really open in its development and governance, and contributions (even from Microsoft) are more than welcome!

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904031)

Does MS want it to work?

Re:Maybe it's just too hard... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38912813)

Well, if hyper-v is considerably harder to support than any of its many competitors then that's good reason not to use it... Why expend all that extra effort for something that brings so little extra to the table?

Also hyper-v is take 2 from ms, they previously had a product called "virtual server" which they pushed for a couple of years, and then dropped totally and then later told people to wait for hyper-v... I would be extremely wary about investing in a product from a company that has a history of dropping products completely, and after a period of having no virtualization offering coming out with an incompatible replacement.

Wrong Summary (4, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903035)

As I read the article, it says that OpenStep's support for Hyper-V is broken or incomplete, leading to its removal from of Hyper-V support from the OpenStep codebase. The summary here could be read either as Microsoft support for OpenStep is broken, or Microsoft support for its own Hyper-V product is broken, neither of which appears to be the case.

In other words, OpenStep users haven't adopted Hyper-V widely or spent a lot of time working on the OpenStep code, and so that part of the tree has fallen into disrepair and it's being removed as not having sufficient interest.

That's my guess...perhaps someone with more knowledge could clarify?

“Just as Nova enters feature freeze, it sounds like a good moment to consider removing deprecated, known-buggy-and-unmaintained or useless feature code from the Essex tree, “ he wrote.

In reply, Ken Pepple, director of cloud development at Internap Network Services, wrote: “”Hyper-V support is missing support for even the most basic functions – volumes, Glance, several network managers, etc. We investigated it for our service, but found it only borderline functional.”

Re:Wrong Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903225)

sed 's/OpenStep/OpenStack/g' && echo You are right

But it is Microsoft's code. (5, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903377)

Microsoft has been trying to push Hyper-V support into Linux, but their original driver code was complete shit, and it's just barely starting to get better. It's almost stable now, but not fully functional. So, yes it is fair to say that Hyper-V support is being removed from OpenStack because Microsoft's support for Hyper-V on Linux has been very poor.

Re:But it is Microsoft's code. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906795)

Didn't the Xen folks write the Linux Hyper-V support:

http://xen.org/products/satori.html

Re:Wrong Summary? Actually wrong comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903649)

Actually this comment is wrong. You said that you read the article but still refer to the project as OpenStep. It is OpenStack and yes the summary is correct the hypervisor Hyper-V has not been supported with the changes made over this last year to OpenStack.

Re:Wrong Summary (4, Informative)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904057)

As I read the article

Frankly, you'd better read the Openstack dev list thread about "dead wood cutting" on launchpad [launchpad.net] , because that's where the article is taking information from (where else could this info be?). It has *never* been said that OpenStack is "ditching" Hyper-V by the way, but that it's just being removed from the Essex release, because it's currently in frozen state (currently only bugfix are accepted, until Essex is released), and Hyper-V isn't up-to-shape.

Re:Wrong Summary (2)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905317)

Microsoft saw fit to do a press release about their partnership with cloud.com to provide support for Microsofts Hyper-V in OpenStack but when Citrix purchased Cloud.com Microsoft dropped the ball keeping the Hyper-V support going and it was their responsibility.

here's Microsoft's press release:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/oct10/10-22openstackpr.mspx

I wouldn't doubt for a minute though that the reason for the original cloud.com partnership was for a bullet point on a presentation showing either their support for other clouds or how they are working with open source. ie just a marketing point and nothing more.

I find it interesting that Citrix threw this ball into the trash after purchasing Cloud.com since it shows what they think of Microsoft relationships.

LoB

People won't be able to get it anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903053)

There's no way content filters will allow anyone to access the site for Essex :-)

Re:People won't be able to get it anyway (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904083)

If you continue, you'll go to Folcom. :)
(if you don't get this joke, search online...)

Read the original ML message (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903185)

If you read the ML message (here : https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg07065.html) you'll see all the reasons.

Re:Read the original ML message (2)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903527)

I read this as "OpenStack support for Hyper-V is unmaintained and/or broken". This does not mean Hyper-V is broken, but it does mean that Microsoft either did not contribute to OpenStack or what they contribute sucks.

While this is not quite the same a "Hyper-V" sucks, it is very close to "Microsoft support for Hyper-V sucks".

Re:Read the original ML message (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904103)

But there are bugs logged against Hyper-V and they haven't gotten satisfactory resolution. Since random programmers can't fix bugs or implement missing features then that falls under "broken" and should be removed if they want to move into a "candidate for release" state.

Re:Read the original ML message (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38911577)

Well, the core problem is that either Microsoft does not care about OpenStack or they are doing their well-known and world-famous incompetent engineering. My personal interpretation is that this is a warning to them.

Re:Read the original ML message (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904107)

And also completely different from "Openstack is ditching Hyper-V" as this /. title is trying to let us believe! It's removed from the next release only, but we'd be happy to see it come back.

If Hyper-V goes, I go. (2)

elabs (2539572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903413)

After fighting with openstack on my hardware for months with no success, this will be the final straw that pushes me to a 100% Azure.stack.

This is what confuses me... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903575)

Why is it remotely interesting to use Hyper-V with Openstack even in theory? MS has their own tooling and if you don't want to use it, why would you want Hyper-V over the more spiritually similar Xen or KVM hypervisors? I've been in a few situations where people have mentioned this but aside from an academic concept of 'completeness', I haven't heard an explanation of the practical relevance of the combination instead of leaving the proprietary stacks to their own efforts.

Re:This is what confuses me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903885)

Microsoft has some interesting licensing terms with respect to Hyper-V: As I recall, if you want to run 5 VMs under hyper-V, the host license (ie: 1 licence) is enough. On the other hand, if you want to run them under xen, vmware, or KVM, you'll need 5 licenses.

As to why you'd want openstack over azure: I presume its only interesting if you want to have a heterogeneous environment, but I don't know for sure.

Re:This is what confuses me... (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38905187)

No, with Windows Server Enterprise you get licenses for four virtual instances of Server Standard or Server Enterprise on that same hardware. If you go with Datacenter Edition you gut unlimited virtualization rights and the ability to move VM's more than once every 90 days (or is it 30?). Almost every shop with a significant number of VM's is already licensing their hosts for Datacenter (I know we do and we run VMWare). As far as why you'd want native Openstack support, if you are going with a hybrid model where you have resources internally and externally it would allow you to have one tool chain control it all. Btw in a hybrid model you'd have to license any externally hosted VM's on a per machine basis which might make it significantly more expensive than internal resources using unlimited Datacenter rights though I expect those rights to be curtailed or the cost of datacenter licenses to go up significantly in the future since they've already gone that route with SQL Enterprise.

Re:This is what confuses me... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38914057)

Ok, licensing argument sounds interesting, if not blatantly anti-competitive.

Re:This is what confuses me... (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904125)

Why is it remotely interesting to use Hyper-V with Openstack even in theory?

For all sorts of reasons, one of them having a full support for EC2 and S3 APIs.

Re:If Hyper-V goes, I go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38903669)

Double win!

A Solid Decision (4, Interesting)

Tohuw (1641271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38903537)

As someone who has spent a great amount of time trying to manage a Hyper-V infrastructure, I can say this was a completely appropriate move and criticism of the product. The management and maintenance of Hyper-V is abysmal, in my experience.

Re:A Solid Decision (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904173)

I manage a multiple large vSphere clusters (50 or so ESXi servers each per vcenter) and multiple Hyper V clusters (2-12 nodes each per cluster and about 15 clusters). Installing, managing, and maintining the ESX clusters takes about 10% of the time even though we have 3x as many ESX servers. Installing, mananging, and maintaining the MS Hyper V clusters takes the other 90%. I'll admit, I have been working with ESX since the 2.x days and although I've been maintaining MS servers for 12 or so years, I;ve only been using Hyper V for about 2 years. I would think though that in 2 years, I would be better at it but there are times I have no idea what are Hyper V clusters are doing. The MS cluster manager is a joke, the SCVMM is a joke. Examples.. Several volumes of out clustered shared volumes are running in redirected mode? Why and where is that logged? What server is having trouble with the storage? All can see the strorage native. Why are my VM moves failing and getting errors that the cluster resource can not be found? You mean I have to remove the specific cluster from SCVMM and readd it to clear that DB inconsistancy up? If you have a network issue with one of more of your Hyper V servers. Should I troubleshoot a that network issue from the cluster validation tool, the MS cluster manager, the Hyper V console, the local control panal, or the SCVMM? ARGHHH! The whole thing and its many different interfaces and management consoles makes the whole thing a random beast.

Re:A Solid Decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904373)

From what I hear, HyperV 3 should make management a lot easier, but I have no experience like you do. Also, how is the pricing between ESX and HyperV?

" maintining the ESX clusters takes about 10% of the time even though we have 3x as many ESX servers": Even if ESX was much more expensive up-front, it sounds like it could easily pay itself off.

Re:A Solid Decision (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38906227)

Hyper V software is much lower actual initial cost but getting an overall cost is above my level but i have some ideas. We went with 2008 Data Center edition and that added cost (which could pay off as we add more 2008 Servers to the Hyper V VM pools). Hardware savings goes to ESX, in our specific environment, we can put more VMs on ESX than Hyper V and get the same performance. On the desktop side, Hyper V with Xen provides a much better end user expereince than VMView. The negative is Hyper V/Xen requires much more hardware and backend configuration and complexity, Xen requires all kinds of connection brokers, gateways, frontends, license servers etc. What if you need to hire for dedicated Hyper V/Xen people instead of using your existing ESX VMView guys.. and so on.
Backups and DR is another. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Making an overall cost comparison is a challange.

Re:A Solid Decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38912917)

The (current|previous) version is crap, wait for (next) version which will be a lot better, honest!
They've been saying this for years, about all manner of lacklustre products...

MS always seem to be several paces behind everyone else, even if the next version is less crap it's unlikely the competition has been standing still.

Re:A Solid Decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38904849)

I'm glad I don't have to manage as much HyperV stuff as you do. I've had more weird or stupid problems with HyperV ( stuff like: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1494797 [ubuntuforums.org] ) than with stuff like VMware (I haven't used ESX) or even VirtualBox (that said soon after oracle acquired Sun, I actually had to rollback to an older "out of date" version of VirtualBox to get some stability).

Too often Microsoft product logs (HyperV, Exchange, IIS, .Net, etc) are like a someone calling up the doctor to say "Doc, it hurts", but the caller doesn't say what the patient was trying to do, which part hurts, and what sort of hurt. Sometimes you're not even sure if the caller is the actual patient!

For some reason I find this happens a lot less with the "UNIX/Linux/OSS" stuff. Maybe the logging code for the OSS stuff are done by people who actually use the stuff. Whereas the logging code for Microsoft's stuff is done by outsourced workers as part of some project requirement. e.g. "must log the error? OK, done.".

Re:A Solid Decision (1)

zootie (190797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38910699)

Yes, MS logging sometimes is overly obtuse and opaque. There seems to be a generalized aversion of putting data into the log, maybe trying not to disclose sensitive information with the error, but it leads to useless error messages in general.

Re:A Solid Decision (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38906815)

THIS gets a +5? Seriously? For what is basically a fancily worded "M$ Sux" post? How about a little more information since you are "someone who has spent a great amount of time trying to manage a Hyper-V infrastructure" and tell us WHY it is abysmal, huh Tohuw? Was it the tools? Did it use too much resources? Not support feature X that you required?

At least when i say i'm disliking a product i list what has been going wrong for me so that others can see if they are experiencing the same, just saying "This sux' doesn't tell us jack shit about anything, other than you don't like a product.

Re:A Solid Decision (1)

Tohuw (1641271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929607)

Calm yourself. Your request for further details is perfectly reasonable, but your outrage dilutes your stance. To answer your question: Nearly every facility of the management interface is either incomplete or woefully underperforming compared to its competitors. But here are a few key points: 1) Snapshot management is atrocious. Snapshotting an active VM takes hours (!!!) and often fails, and existing snapshots are entirely linear, such that if I roll back to a snapshot, take a snapshot and roll back to where I started, the newest snapshot appears as "newest" which is not technically correct (compare this to VSphere's much better implementation of this) 2) The backend simply cannot handle replacing a machine if there is any remnant of the previous VM's directory structure, and without actually changing the base configuration (which means moving every VM file), you cannot handpick the directory paths. I had to create a VM 3 times over because of this. 3) The console has virtually none of the host configuration options present in an ESX implementation. E.g,, storage adapters, datastore management, alarm triggers, etc. These are just a few reasons.

Too hard?!? (2)

certain death (947081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38904365)

To the folks who said maybe the guys at CloudStack might think it is too hard to implement Hyper-V: WTF have you been smoking? These are the guys who built this from scratch, I doubt something would be "Too Hard" or that they were in some way too lazy to do it. To the folks who said Xen is not even in the picture: WTF have _YOU_ been smoking? Let's see...who uses Xen? RedHat, Oracle, Citrix, Microsoft (yep, they sure do!) and a host of other people from my measly little home box to MASSIVE hosting companies. My two centavos...

Isn't this more about interface contracts? (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38909565)

Hyper-V contributions to OpenStack by Microsoft initially worked, or they wouldn't have been accepted.

There's no such thing as "bit rot", there are only people who fail to maintain binary backward compatibility in their products as they move forward, as OpenStack has done here.

Lack of interface contracts is probably one of the biggest barriers to commercial software sales in Open Source environments. I don't blame OpenStack for dropping the support, but I do blame them for breaking binary compatibility, and then saying it's the fault of the software they are no longer compatible with because it failed to field a bunch of engineers to make lock-step changes to accommodate OpenStack's apparently arbitrary interface changes.

Hyper-V is not suddenly a different mouse, OpenStack has moved their cheese.

-- Terry

Re:Isn't this more about interface contracts? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38912941)

The world moves on, and things have to change in order to improve...
Sure, the initial design could have been better and thus more flexible and easier to adapt to change, for instance the basic design of unix hasn't changed much and the basic unix design now powers huge numbers of different devices. But still, there are limits and always unforeseen new requirements.

MS have subjected their customers to this many times too, there are many situations where compatibility has been broken, or even worse situations where they have implemented very questionable hacks in order to try and maintain some level of compatibility...

Put simply, as the world changes you have to change with it, you can't just sit on your ass and hope that everyone else waits for you.

Amusing analogy you use, mice are very adaptable creatures so if you put the cheese in hard to reach places they will soon work out how to reach it.

Let's try a different analogy (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38920873)

The last analogy was a reference to the book "Who Moved My Cheese?". But you didn't like it, so let's try another one.

A commercial company is like a large cargo ship loaded with containers, and an Open Source project is like a sail boat. If you want to move a lot of freight reliably in one trip, you use the cargo ship. If you want to be able to change direction quickly to explore a lot of directions and could care less about cargo, you use the sailboat.

But a sailboat that wants to lead a cargo ship around is out of it's fricking little mind if it thinks that the cargo ship is going to be able to turn on a dime like the sailboat. It's up to the sailboat to make the necessary allowances to keep the fleet together.

As to your second point, about one vendors software changes breaking anothers:

The Solaris DDI/DKI has maintained binary backward compatibility for a long time. So Has Mac OS X. Many DOS programs still run on Windows systems, even today. All of those systems have moved forward without leaving swaths of collateral damage by maintaining binary compatibility over at least one major release cycle, usually longer.

Yes, Microsoft has orphaned the occasional product with no notice. Microsoft being assholes isn't a blanket asshole license for everybody who'd like to be one.

  "But MOM! She hit me first!" is never a good starting point for winning an argument.

-- Terry

Re:Let's try a different analogy (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937633)

Solaris yes, backwards compatibility is very good...
OSX is an especially poor example, Apple dropped compatibility completely with OS9 in the name of progress and thus we have OSX at all. They then moved to a completely different hardware architecture, again dropping compatibility...
Apple have also deprecated a number of older APIs in the name of progress.
Windows retains a fairly high level of backwards compatibility, but its not perfect and it comes at a huge cost in the form of some very crufty hacks, massive levels of bloat and plenty of security holes.

Your new analogy is also not good, commercial software is more like hiring space on someone else's cargo ship that's going to pre determined destinations whereas open source is more like having your own ship, whatever type of ship that may be, which you can dynamically resize according to the load and destination of your choice.
Or a slightly better one...
Commercial software is like a bus, if your lucky it will be going where you want to go, if not you might have to walk or adjust your plans, on the other hand someone else does the driving for you.
Open source is like having your own car, it will go exactly where you want it to when you want it to, but you need to learn to drive or hire a driver yourself.

I call BS. (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38952011)

Solaris yes, backwards compatibility is very good...
OSX is an especially poor example, Apple dropped compatibility completely with OS9 in the name of progress and thus we have OSX at all. They then moved to a completely different hardware architecture, again dropping compatibility...
Apple have also deprecated a number of older APIs in the name of progress.

That's BS. Apple maintained binary backward compatibility with 68K Mac OS for multiple releases, then kept maintaining support for older programs using the Blue Box (Classic) environment. When the Intel switchover happened, they again maintained binary compatibility with PPC software over several releases using Rosetta.

Carbon was a stopgap solution that was not intended to survive transition to native APIs, yet stayed around far longer than it should have. It finally got shot in the head when 64 bit GUI libraries finally shipped because it was impossible to jam a 64 bit inode number into a 32 bit hard-coded on disk structure for the file ID mechanism without losing backward compatibility anyway.

The only thing people miss is Carbon, because they were using the CodeWarrior compiler, and all its C++ glue was based on reexporting the Carbon APIs instead of the Cocoa APIs, and they never got their act together to move the code to the APIs they were supposed to have been using instead. Mostly that came down to Adobe Photoshop plugins, and Adobe not doing the right thing with regard to Coca with plugins and binary compatibility on their part.

As a kernel engineer at Apple, I had to leave a glaring security hole in the kernel for two releases because of not being allowed to break binary compatibility with programs that had used a particular sysctl() that they had been told not to used, and that they were supposed to popen() the ps program instead, if they wanted to enumerate processes. Mostly this was because people not dropping pid files in /var/run simply because they didn't understand the UNIXy way of communicating process information was to record the information apriori rather than scanning the running processes to see if the Final Cut Pro renderer (for example) was already hanging around.

It's basically damn near impossible to deprecate anything at Apple in less than three release cycles. You would not believe the cruft that's still hanging around because of that. It took forever, but some of us finally jammed through __deprecated in and started marking APIs we wanted dead. Still takes three release cycles to kill something, but at least people can't use a deprecated API and -Werror at the same time, and get nastygrams from the compiler if they use XCode with the default settings.

NB: I work at Google now, so it's not like I've said any of the above out a misguided sense of company loyalty.

-- Terry

Re:I call BS. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38965493)

Sure Apple make an effort to maintain compatibility, but that effort is as you pointed out limited, typically to 3 release cycles... At which point, the older stuff is cut off completely.
Solaris 11 can still run binaries from the first versions of Solaris (early 90s), it might even be able to run bins from sunos 4.x still tho i don't have any to try.
Windows 7 can still run most win32 binaries from NT3, and some dos and win16 binaries.
Linux can still run a.out binaries and older libc5 compiled bins (although most distros don't ship with the compatibility libs by default, compatibility is arguably less important for linux as the vast majority of apps can be recompiled by users).

OSX 10.5 removed the ability to run OS9 bins
OSX 10.6 removed the ability to run on PPC hardware
OSX 10.7 removed the ability to run PPC bins under emulation on x86 hardware

Running the latest OSX, i can't run any mac programs which are more than 7 years old without at least recompiling them if not making code changes, whereas for better or worse other systems will allow me to run programs which are 20+ years old.

You're side-tracking. (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#38970805)

You're side-tracking.

Hyper-V got "broken" over a single release by an arbitrary OpenStack change that didn't try at all.

Hyper-V was broken by OpenStack in less than the 3 year amortization schedule for computer hardware and software permitted by FAS (Federal Accounting Standards). If they want to be taken as a serious comercial-competitive product, they have to permit the accountants to keep old software they work with around 3 years.

Your OS X examples all have one thing in common: 5-10 years before the official switch is thrown, which is well in excess of when a normal business would have had to throw the hardware out in order to avoid IRS penalties for continuing to use hardware they'd already amortized the value out of.

-- Terry

TOWIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38913211)

The only was is Essex (UK 'reaility' TV show)!..... http://www.itv.com/essex/towie-faces/

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?