Testing oVirt...
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
Like ZFS. We had it a decade, then it became a fad that no one could live without, now no one remembers it.
No, ZoL, IMO is still a piece of dung. And Solaris is a no-go OS nowadays, so I just keep away. VDO is nice if you need dedupe, for all the other features, there are solutions available too.
Yeah, but the frenzy around it was crazy. Seriously nuts. People were out of their minds in love with ZFS to the point that they based whole infrastructure decisions around getting it (and on FreeBSD no less.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
I like this take on Docker from an important database vendor: "Running Scylla in Docker is the simplest way to experiment with Scylla and we highly recommend it. However, running stateful containers is complex and tuning is needed to maximize the performance. We recommend that you use packages..."
And yet, it is now possible to run a stateful database which is very close to the metal, in docker, with no performance losses. Moreover, if the container dies, you do not reinstall, you simply respawn the container, and if the storage survived - simply attach it when you spawn.
I agree with this. Docker is great for testing, absolutely excellent. And some workloads, it's great for deploying (especially when it is internal code that you control and know it will be compatible.)
Microservices. When all components are independent daemons, talking over a common message bus or API, keeping them containerized (note how I don't mention docker specifically) makes keeping the system up very easy.
There's a good reason even a monster like Openstack is moving towards containerizing all the various services it is running
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
VMs were not tried and true before ~2010-ish, when the tech became more or less commonplace and "boring".
They were. You are thinking x86 commodity space. But in the enterprise, we were using them heavily for a very, very long time.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
I like this take on Docker from an important database vendor: "Running Scylla in Docker is the simplest way to experiment with Scylla and we highly recommend it. However, running stateful containers is complex and tuning is needed to maximize the performance. We recommend that you use packages..."
And yet, it is now possible to run a stateful database which is very close to the metal, in docker, with no performance losses. Moreover, if the container dies, you do not reinstall, you simply respawn the container, and if the storage survived - simply attach it when you spawn.
How's that different than not using Docker, though? I've had that capability for basically forever. That's not new or unique to Docker or containerization.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yeah, but the frenzy around it was crazy. Seriously nuts. People were out of their minds in love with ZFS to the point that they based whole infrastructure decisions around getting it (and on FreeBSD no less.)
I've seen ZoL break way too many times to even consider it
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
I agree with this. Docker is great for testing, absolutely excellent. And some workloads, it's great for deploying (especially when it is internal code that you control and know it will be compatible.)
Microservices. When all components are independent daemons, talking over a common message bus or API, keeping them containerized (note how I don't mention docker specifically) makes keeping the system up very easy.
There's a good reason even a monster like Openstack is moving towards containerizing all the various services it is running
Yes, if you have microservices, which is getting traction but will be a long time before most workloads are that way, it can be very good to have minuscule containers to handle them individually.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yeah, but the frenzy around it was crazy. Seriously nuts. People were out of their minds in love with ZFS to the point that they based whole infrastructure decisions around getting it (and on FreeBSD no less.)
I've seen ZoL break way too many times to even consider it
ZoL isn't where the frenzy was.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
They were. You are thinking x86 commodity space. But in the enterprise, we were using them heavily for a very, very long time.
Like I said, LPARs and similar tech from other vendors (don't even remember the names now) were much closer to containers than to proper VMs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yes, if you have microservices, which is getting traction but will be a long time before most workloads are that way, it can be very good to have minuscule containers to handle them individually.
It's pretty much the default to all new software that gets developed. New version to existing legacy stuff is not included of course.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
They were. You are thinking x86 commodity space. But in the enterprise, we were using them heavily for a very, very long time.
Like I said, LPARs and similar tech from other vendors (don't even remember the names now) were much closer to containers than to proper VMs.
LPARs are traditionally considered the "most proper" VM, they are the heaviest weight. A full VM, like ESXi produces, is the closest thing to them in the commodity X86 space today. LPARs were nothing like containers. Containers share a kernel, LPARs shared nothing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
ZoL isn't where the frenzy was.
I missed the FBSD frenzy, in fact, I haven't seen anything resembling a frenzy around that old thing for about 10-12 years now. I wish there was one - moving companies to Linux from a pre-existing Unix setup is the easiest sell ever
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yes, if you have microservices, which is getting traction but will be a long time before most workloads are that way, it can be very good to have minuscule containers to handle them individually.
It's pretty much the default to all new software that gets developed. New version to existing legacy stuff is not included of course.
Yes, but there is a lot of legacy stuff that isn't going anywhere. Most people have to deal with legacy stuff indefinitely.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
ZoL isn't where the frenzy was.
I missed the FBSD frenzy, in fact, I haven't seen anything resembling a frenzy around that old thing for about 10-12 years now. I wish there was one - moving companies to Linux from a pre-existing Unix setup is the easiest sell ever
No one cared that it was FreeBSD, it was 100% about ZFS. In fact, companies packaged FreeBSD to hide it and touted only ZFS as the reason to use their stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yes, but there is a lot of legacy stuff that isn't going anywhere. Most people have to deal with legacy stuff indefinitely.
I get recruiter calls all the time, and they all want the new shiny tech, not old legacy knowledge. At least all the recruiters who have a decent offer on hand. The ones who want old school sysadmins to work on old systems that aren't going anywhere, are offering miniscule wages.
And like I mentioned above - there are means of dealing with legacy stuff in containers, just like when vmware was starting to become prominent, a lot of effort was invested in supporting older OS inside a VM, so that people would be able to move away from old hardware
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yes, but there is a lot of legacy stuff that isn't going anywhere. Most people have to deal with legacy stuff indefinitely.
I get recruiter calls all the time, and they all want the new shiny tech, not old legacy knowledge. At least all the recruiters who have a decent offer on hand. The ones who want old school sysadmins to work on old systems that aren't going anywhere, are offering miniscule wages.
Tell that to the financial sector
Developers get big bucks doing new work. IT gets big bucks supporting bad development.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
No one cared that it was FreeBSD, it was 100% about ZFS. In fact, companies packaged FreeBSD to hide it and touted only ZFS as the reason to use their stuff.
There were a few companies that managed to sell some ZFS based stuff, but I really wouldn't call it a craze. And all the major SAN vendors caught up and produced their own stuff with the same featureset, only stable
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Tell that to the financial sector
Actually, the latest few calls, all about the very shiny and new devopsy stack involved, were from financial companies - old prominent banks and a couple of hedge funds. As Wall-street as they ever come.
Developers get big bucks doing new work. IT gets big bucks supporting bad development.
Or good development, it's an ongoing process after all, bugs get fixed, features get introduced, more bugs come up etc etc etc
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
No one cared that it was FreeBSD, it was 100% about ZFS. In fact, companies packaged FreeBSD to hide it and touted only ZFS as the reason to use their stuff.
There were a few companies that managed to sell some ZFS based stuff, but I really wouldn't call it a craze. And all the major SAN vendors caught up and produced their own stuff with the same featureset, only stable
The craze was with the end users. One of the strongest fanboy cultures I've ever witnessed in IT.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Tell that to the financial sector
Actually, the latest few calls, all about the very shiny and new devopsy stack involved, were from financial companies - old prominent banks and a couple of hedge funds. As Wall-street as they ever come.
Yeah, DevOps in finance is old hat. They've been doing that for quite a while.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yeah, DevOps in finance is old hat. They've been doing that for quite a while.
devops, config management, containers, kubernetes, a bunch of various big-data tech. When I see that mentioned, I can easily imagine what the structure of their currently developed software is - microservices all the way, no legacy involved.
And if anyone but us two is reading this - DevOps isn't new, it's as ancient as companies like Ford and Toyota, ask any business major (think of that over your next smoothie, young hipsters)
