Quote:
Ubuntu Server is fine for personal use. To be honest it's fine for professional use but there's various design decisions which fly directly against my administration style. However Debian is genuinely a solid product and well worth a serious look if ever you fancy trying another Ubuntu-like server OS that isn't Ubuntu.Originally Posted by subassy 
Wow plan9 you seem like one of the experts here. I'm just starting to try and dip my toes into the linux server world. I was going to sit a virtualbox install on top of ubuntu server for a WHS install (long story) and I thought I had my found my minimal linux server distro for doing such an odd thing but your case for straight vanilla debian has me doubting myself now (and I'm not sure I'll ever switch assuming I successfully set it up).
Are there some long term concerns about using some version ubuntu server for relatively casual use? I mean just as a hobby, running in my house. This might be riding the line of off subject. I'll start a new thread if anybody insists.
Wow plan9 you seem like one of the experts here. I'm just starting to try and dip my toes into the linux server world. I was going to sit a virtualbox install on top of ubuntu server for a WHS install (long story) and I thought I had my found my minimal linux server distro for doing such an odd thing but your case for straight vanilla debian has me doubting myself now (and I'm not sure I'll ever switch assuming I successfully set it up).
Are there some long term concerns about using some version ubuntu server for relatively casual use? I mean just as a hobby, running in my house. This might be riding the line of off subject. I'll start a new thread if anybody insists.
Quote:
That's not really fair though - you'd need a "full blown kernel" for any OS and the reality is a decent enough coded kernel has next to no foot print anyway. In fact I'm pretty sure ESXi uses Linux -the kernel- anyway. If not in its entiraty, then definitely to "chainload" some Linux drivers and/or user space utilities (I'll discuss that in more detail further down).Originally Posted by trueg50
ESXi operates more as an appliance compared to. ESX, KVM, etc.. The latter use a full blown linux kernel, and are nearly full blown general purpose OS's;
ESXi operates more as an appliance compared to. ESX, KVM, etc.. The latter use a full blown linux kernel, and are nearly full blown general purpose OS's;
However that's all moot as it's the user space that will cause the issues. Thus this is where the comparison becomes impossible. KVM is just a kernel stack where as ESXi is a whole solution from the kernel through to user space utilities. KVM will depend on user space tools (such as Qemu or OpenVZ) and thus KVM -on it's own- is not a complete solution. So you can't really do a direct comparison between ESXi and KVM in the sense that you are - really you need to compare KVM solutions such as Proxmox against ESXi.
Quote:
Which is exactly what Proxmox is: a massively cut down release of Debian.Originally Posted by trueg50
ESXi is heavily cut down in size, and it was really gutted of pieces that don't help it in the hypervisor role. They also tacked on a basic firewall and a few other nifty features (Storage DRS, Storage Heartbeating etc..), but those require vCenter so he won't get to play with those fun features.
ESXi is heavily cut down in size, and it was really gutted of pieces that don't help it in the hypervisor role. They also tacked on a basic firewall and a few other nifty features (Storage DRS, Storage Heartbeating etc..), but those require vCenter so he won't get to play with those fun features.
Plus you're stating that ESXi wouldn't have a full blown OS then proceed to add a number of features that then bring it back up to the same level as a minimal Linux install. You don't need OpenSSH, iptables, syslog-ng nor cron running on Linux. You don't even need Bash. And some minimal installers don't ship one or more of those daemons.
However Proxmox does ship with a firewall (based on Shorewall IIRC) and I'd wager a small sum that vSphear just uses a Linux firewall too given the number of highly proven firewalls on the market. That might not be where the Linux code ends for ESXi either. A number of the other ESXi tools -such as storage solutions- might also be based upon Linux drivers too. I'm only hypothesising here but as storage / filesystem drivers are pretty hard to perfect and yet critical for production use (you want to be damn sure that you do perfect them for enterprise level applications!!), it would make more sense to work off existing proven technology than re-invent the wheel and risk breaking your entire software stack. Plus (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), I've never heard of VMWare in the enterprise storage arena as well as the virtualisation market, where as more traditional Linux-based solutions are.
Also when Proxmox already supports many features that ESXi does not without vCenter, then it makes more sense to go with the cheaper solution. The firewall alone is a killer feature in my opinion.
Quote:
You make fair points there Originally Posted by trueg50
I wouldn't say that it is the only game in town, but VMware is the 800lb gorilla in the hypervisor market and when you say "virtualization" people think "oh that VMware thinggy?". Thus, like with Microsoft, if you are going to learn a product and technology (especially for a new job), your best chances are in picking the most popular one because people know it.
The principles are the same, how the technology works is some what the same, but employers want to make sure you do know the nuances, as they are very important. The Theories work great in the classroom, but don't always work so well in the datacenter. This is especially true with software, as what they advertize, and how they actually work in real life are two very different things. I should know, I've broken my share of VMware products, and they are pretty good about helping/providing patches if need be.
I wouldn't say that it is the only game in town, but VMware is the 800lb gorilla in the hypervisor market and when you say "virtualization" people think "oh that VMware thinggy?". Thus, like with Microsoft, if you are going to learn a product and technology (especially for a new job), your best chances are in picking the most popular one because people know it.
The principles are the same, how the technology works is some what the same, but employers want to make sure you do know the nuances, as they are very important. The Theories work great in the classroom, but don't always work so well in the datacenter. This is especially true with software, as what they advertize, and how they actually work in real life are two very different things. I should know, I've broken my share of VMware products, and they are pretty good about helping/providing patches if need be.
Edited by Plan9 - 5/11/12 at 1:26am
