Migrating away from XenServer
-
@travisdh1 said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stuartjordan said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@travisdh1 said in Migrating away from XenServer:
After this, it would be easier to just copy the actual drive image from XenServer. Just about any tool can convert those un-exported images no problem.
Will you be using Ovirt?
Whatever libvirt is using on CentOS 7. I don't know off the top of my head. Just know that I can manage the local and remote machines via Virtual Machine Manager.
on centos "plain" repo it is virt manager. enablig the centos ovirt repo you can run ovirt.
-
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller but I don't want my host to stop working for an update… OpenSuSe 42.3 seems fairly recent to me.
That's because it JUST released, so it feels recent. But the real question is, how recent does 42.2 feel? That's the one that would tell you if you'd be happy with the LTS release cycle or not. I don't see much value in LTS releases any longer.
-
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@coliver said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller but I don't want my host to stop working for an update… OpenSuSe 42.3 seems fairly recent to me.
What does this mean? Why would stop working?
I've seen updates breaking bridge functionality or messing with the VM hardware… an always updated host is a good choice for security and performance, but run VMs on libvirt alpha…
That can happen with LTS the same as rolling, though. Is rolling really at any greater risk of this?
-
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
-
@scottalanmiller with non-server hardware, 100% yes. I had multiple laptop and desktop pc that weren't able to boot or do basic stuff like loading bash or reading their own LUKS or LVM volume just after an update.
-
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
-
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
-
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
From a user standpoint I'd much rather have a small update go wrong than a big update go wrong. And from a dev standpoint I'm much more nervous releasing a huge update than a small one. Huge updates obviously have a higher risk of having issues. I personally would much rather take the incremental Fedora updates.
edit: but that's just me
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
-
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
-
For purposes of host stability I prefer Fedora over CentOS where the applications on top allow for it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
And you've never answered the question I've asked you before. What are you using for central logging on Fedora?
-
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
And you've never answered the question I've asked you before. What are you using for central logging on Fedora?
We've moved away from central logging temporarily during a major overhaul internally. Are you seeing issues with Fedora with central logging?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
And you've never answered the question I've asked you before. What are you using for central logging on Fedora?
We've moved away from central logging temporarily during a major overhaul internally. Are you seeing issues with Fedora with central logging?
You pretty much can't unless you pipe journald into syslog and ship out that way. Which is 100% going backwards.
I don't like the way systemd handles logging (in Fedora).
-
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
And you've never answered the question I've asked you before. What are you using for central logging on Fedora?
We've moved away from central logging temporarily during a major overhaul internally. Are you seeing issues with Fedora with central logging?
You pretty much can't unless you pipe journald into syslog and ship out that way. Which is 100% going backwards.
I don't like the way systemd handles logging (in Fedora).
Yeah, there have been loads of complaints about how Fedora is handling a lot of that stuff (and some other distros, too.) SystemD is not doing Linux any favours.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@stacksofplates said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@francesco-provino said in Migrating away from XenServer:
@scottalanmiller so, your raccomandation for deploying a KVM host is fedora 26, because KVM it is RH baby and F26 is the most recent one?
That would likely be where I would go. Suse supports KVM pretty well, though. Either is fine. But definitely Fedora over CentOS / RHEL. I've stopped using them anytime that I have the choice. We've almost completely replaced our CentOS 7 boxes with vastly superior Fedora 26 boxes. There are a few cases where CentOS still makes sense like for Zimbra hosts. But by and large Fedora makes the better sense.
Those aren't hypervisor hosts though. There's a difference between state machines running Fedora and your host that the state machines are running on running Fedora.
Right, there is a difference, but for both you want stability, performance and features. I'd want Fedora in both cases.
I've had Fedora upgrades not go smoothly. So if that happens it's less stability than CentOS, esp since it's every ~8 months.
How have your CentOS updates gone? I've had far better luck with smaller, incremental Fedora updates.
Never had an issue with updates. And I'm not talking normal updates. I'm talking release upgrades that have removed features and broken backwards compatibility.
State machines sure run whatever the newest best because it's easy to rebuild. The host needs stability which I have had less with on Fedora than CentOS.
Right, and I feel that Fedora has the edge on stability now. Hence why I want Fedora under the hood. I don't want the massive LTS upgrade risks that CentOS brings. Not that it has no advantages, but I don't feel that they outweight the benefits any longer.
And you've never answered the question I've asked you before. What are you using for central logging on Fedora?
We've moved away from central logging temporarily during a major overhaul internally. Are you seeing issues with Fedora with central logging?
You pretty much can't unless you pipe journald into syslog and ship out that way. Which is 100% going backwards.
I don't like the way systemd handles logging (in Fedora).
Yeah, there have been loads of complaints about how Fedora is handling a lot of that stuff (and some other distros, too.) SystemD is not doing Linux any favours.
I like systemd if they would just leave the logging the way it is in RHEL/CentOS. It's nice being able to search specific time spaces but there isn't even a messages file in Fedora anymore.
-
@danp said in Migrating away from XenServer:
Have you taken a look at StarWind V2V Converter?
Thanks for mentioning StarWind, just wanted to make an addition of the features available in the V2V Converter which includes a Windows Repair Mode which may become useful in the process of converting to VHDX. The end result would be the automatic VM adaptation to the given hardware environment, negating any possible compatibility problems.
Take a look here - https://www.starwindsoftware.com/converter for any other additional information.
