Comments on: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization HA [ha ha]

By: buraq

buraq — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:17:34 +0000

Thank you Eric.

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:32:21 +0000

I use the Snagit screen capture utility.

By: buraq

buraq — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:50:57 +0000

Hi Eric, love your blog!

Silly question, how do you make this images/screenshots look like this ?
like it’s some paper been cut

TIA

By: IanH

IanH — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:57:09 +0000

If only that were true.. There is this wonderful thing called human error, like the DC engineer who throws the wrong circuit breaker after a power feed failure and turns your entire rack off and off goes your fancy blade enclosure (and I had this happen last week so it does happen!)

By: jlchannel

jlchannel — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:28:22 +0000

RHEVM is really suck and I would said stupid product.

By: John L.

John L. — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:59:05 +0000

http://thedailywtf.com/#Pic4

By: Vishal Bhatia

Vishal Bhatia — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:19:11 +0000

Point is every organization makes tall claims about their Product’s features and no-one highlights the weaknesses.

VMWare claims FT to be such an important feature. How many times the customer is actually told :
That it can have only 1 vCPU and that too with upto 20% overhead. I’ve heard of VMWare claims that FT can make RAC redundant. Imagine running a DB VM with a single vcpu and upto 20% overhead
That it requires a dedicated Gigabit Ethernet network between the physical servers, 10 Gigabit Ethernet should be considered if VMware FT is enabled for many virtual machines on the same host.
That you can’t use memory over-commit, thin provisioning, hot-plugging of devices and even snapshots with FT. All the features that VMWare claims are critical for a virtual environment and charges you $$$s for.

Xen 4.0 also provides FT and possibly with a lot less overhead and multiple vcpu support

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:20:55 +0000

The version of RHEV available when this article was written — and the one with which Red Hat was boldly claiming vSphere parity — was 2.1; the features of 2.1 as described above are 100% accurate.

Maybe Red Hat should have waited to get all of the features actually in a shipping product before their CEO started firing shots at VMware.

If you think capacity management is simple arithmetic, you are entitled to your opinion.

Since VMware ESXi is a small-footprint hypervisor that contains no Linux, I would have to agree with the point about VMware not leveraging SELinux.

By: Eric Gray

Eric Gray — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:07:23 +0000

Is that right? My understanding of Red Hat’s stated direction is to open source RHEV after the Java port is finished.

http://www.linux-kvm.com/content/update-rhev-m-going-open-source

Even if Red Hat would release the current source for RHEV, what would anyone do with a big pile of deprecated Windows .NET code?

By: Anton Zhbankov

Anton Zhbankov — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:41:36 +0000

This argument always makes me laughing.

Do you ask for all the design drawings when you buy a car?