Testing oVirt...
-
@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)
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@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.
Big business tends to list requirements that they sense as trends, long before they use them internally.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
Can you show any research, benchmarks, stats, anything that shows Fedora is actually better and more stable than an EL distribution?
Define "better" and "stable". And for who?
-
@obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
Can you show any research, benchmarks, stats, anything that shows Fedora is actually better and more stable than an EL distribution?
Define "better" and "stable". And for who?
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
-
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
-
@dyasny Lol I agree with that. People in many industries are constantly renaming things to make it sound new and raise the hype.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Big business tends to list requirements that they sense as trends, long before they use them internally.
Maybe, but the interviews were with the guys already implementing the tech, and they were quite happy to describe what is already done and why they wanted me to join up
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at? What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
-
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
-
@jmoore said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny Lol I agree with that. People in many industries are constantly renaming things to make it sound new and raise the hype.
When I was working as an Openstack integration engineer, I had a little framed note on my desk. It read "there is no cloud, it's just someone else's computer"
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
Support. Fedora has insanely broad vendor (meaning RH) and third party (the software makers) support. Possibly the broadest in the industry, or maybe second after Ubuntu. But Ubuntu support leans towards the unsupported LTS releases making Ubuntu products questionably supported at all (since Ubuntu's official stance is that if you need LTS support beyond consulting, meaning actual fixes, you might have to leave LTS and go to Current and if your software vendor is LTS only, the resulting product is unsupported.)
Alpine is great, but not many vendors test against it.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at? What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
PHP packages are the glaring one lots of us ran into recently.
Living software, meaning software that companies were actively updating and releasing tended to eventually require that we bolt on Fedora libraries to CentOS to keep it working - 100% defeating the purpose of CentOS since now we are using Fedora anyway, but without as much unified testing from either side.
Ran into this with a lot of packages.
Those that still worked on CentOS, did so at a fraction of the speed. Not ideal. Bottom line, CentOS hasn't been up to the job. It's too much like old Windows - a great solution with the goal being of supporting bad third party products that aren't current themselves (and are often ghost ships.)
In the Windows world, abandoned software is the norm, not the exception. It's so common, no one thinks much of it. The entire Windows ecosystem embraces this traditionally (this is starting to change as MS wants to start being more competitive) and much of the Windows super slow release schedule and the way they traditionally treated an update more like a new product that would stand on its own forever were focused around providing an aging, never-updating platform for non-living software packages that needed to just "keep running" without real updates for possibly decades.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you.
Remember no one wants bleeding edge. Current stable and bleeding edge are worlds apart.
Long Term Release < Current Stable < Cutting Edge < Bleeding Edge
Fedora is very production ready, very stable. It's very, very far away from bleeding edge. Even Tumbleweed is only cutting edge.
