HP drops $1bn, two-year OpenStack cash bomb Hewlett-Packard is has unveiled a $1bn, two-year campaign promoting its open-source cloud, now rebranded as Helion. The PC maker says it will be spending on R&D, the development of cloud products and hiring “hundreds” of experts in a new OpenStack professional services practice. Experts are being hired to cover planning advice …
Ac I'm not even a Linux user, but you really are boring the pants off us.
You may not even bother as posting as AC, you posts are so predictable, it's easy to figure it from the same, dull, repetitive low level postings. Heck if you were to take a Turing test, I'm pretty sure you would fail as a human.
Seriously, I've heard off-shored call centre staff stick to a less rigid script.
Openstack would likely be as performant as Azure if the choice of Hypervisor was Hyper-V.
Usually if they made the unfortunate choice to use OpenStack though the default is some flavour of Linux virtualisation with the inherent scalability limits and efficiency overhead compared to Hyper-V.
OpenStack is a horrible to use hodge podge of products tied together with string, and is only really suitable for very large IAAS vendors who can make the large investment in all of the Dev Ops work required to get a working stack. Normal enterprises will be far better off with System Centre, or failing that then vCloud Director.
"Does VMware have a Type2 Hypervisor, BTW?"
Yes - VMWare Workstation.
"kvm would be almost as fast as running on bare-metal."
All production versions of KVM are significantly less scalable and efficient than both Hyper-V Server and vSphere. This is likely because KVM is built on top of a Linux OS (Type 2), whereas both Hyper-V Server and vSphere are dedicated Hypervisor layers without an underlying OS (Type 1).
This is probably why despite being 'free' - KVM has a less than 1% hypervisor market share.
>Normal enterprises will be far better off with System Centre, or failing that then vCloud Director.
Perhaps, but this is HP running a cloud - the are looking for economies of scale, not costs which scale with usage. Given that they own the hardware too, performance shouldn't be an issue either. The aim of vertical integration is to cut the money going to other people.
Personally, I think I'd pour money into something like postgres on HP-ux. Get some of Oracle's business. The cloud is not reliable enough for it to be mission critical yet.
Well if you refer to performance comparison done outside of Redmond I would like to see it. If KVM does not scale why is it use by Google?
If Xen is bad why AWS runs on Xen or Softlayer(my company) dont get me wrong we support Hyper-V as well but I really don't see it a solution outside of MS land even with the linux support. If you are full MS house with limited size this might well be the right chose.
If you want it easy use VMware and pay the premium. Soon I think that Openstack + KVM compo is doing orchestration so well that you don't have to.
Main question is: Do you soon need hypervisor at all? Openstack is getting direct Linux container hook soon and you could run CoreOS based semi PaaS directly from baremel from your own DC. We can do it today but at moment it is outside of capabilities of many IT departments.
AWS runs on Xen because it is an old archaic platform that they are still for the most part trapped into because they have customized it so much it is difficult to move to something different(or even a newer version of Xen last I heard anyway).
I am surprised the read the comment above saying that KVM is a type 2 hypervisor as that is not what I believed it was, it didn't take long to find this though
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/ibmvirtualization/entry/kvm_myths_uncovering_the_truth_about_the_open_source_hypervisor?lang=en
"Myth #1: KVM is type 2 hypervisor that is hosted by the operating system, and isn’t a bare metal hypervisor.
This is a persistent myth, but the truth is that KVM actually does run directly on x86 hardware. People assume it is a type 2 hypervisor because one of the ways that it is packaged is as a component of Linux - so you can be running a Linux distribution and then, from the command-line shell prompt or from a graphical user interface on that Linux box, you can start KVM. "
Can't imagine anyone in their right mind deploying Xen these days, go to Citrix yourself even they will admit it is an inferior product and are happy to support you running on VMware. They keep it because if people really see the value in the lower licenses it can be a workable option for some. From a tech standpoint it's been obsolete for years.
Actually, the IBM article is being loose with the truth which is unfortunate because IBM should know better. KVM is a type 2 hypervisor just like the old VMware GSX server and Microsoft's old Virtual Server. In KVM/GSX/Virtual Server, the hypervisor runs within the OS kernel. While it's "technically" running on the metal, it's not a Type 1 hypervisor like Xen/ESX/Hyper-V, which sit BELOW the kernel. There are a number of reasons why bare metal is superior, but the biggest difference is that in a Type 1 hypervisor can be much more granular in terms of resource control and doesn't have to fight for contention with the OS kernel. That's why both VMware and Microsoft jettisoned type 2 hypervisors for their server solutions. For running Windows/Exchange/SharePoint/SQL/Dynamics, there's no doubt Hyper-V performs the best. We moved all of our MS workloads to Hyper-V/System Center and it smokes ESX. For our Linux (RHEL/SUSE), it's on Xen for now, but that's likely going to move to Hyper-V down the road.
KVM runs as a Ring 0 hypervisor (vmxroot) with the guests have full access via a deprivileged Ring 0. Although instantiation may come from user-space, that does not mean the hypervisor itself is Type 2.
For an intents and purposed, KVM can be safely considered Type 1. Hell, it doesn't even need a Linux kernel.
Read more here: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/ibmvirtualization/entry/kvm_myths_uncovering_the_truth_about_the_open_source_hypervisor
That's assuming you care about facts rather than FUD.
they don't own any strategic, or high value software. They are sounding like Oracle/Sun about the complete system and all the parts from one vendor. Though not sure that is working that well for Oracle, and they have an incredible global lockin customer base with their database, and many application level software plays that give them more credibility to try and pull off the "complete system" play. HP has mainly hardware, and that is a commodity game, and Intel and their white-box marketing machine will eat them up in the next 2-5 years is my prediction. I give HP credit for trying this, but doubt it will work.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
