When asked to write about the pros and cons of deploying multiple hypervisors, my first thought was that nobody in their right mind would want to do such a thing, especially if the software was from different vendors. Management would be a nightmare and so would all kinds of compatibility issues. On further investigation, it …
Oh, a mixed estate
I thought we were going to be investigating hypervisor stacking.
Running KVM on Hyper-V under VMWare ESX, just for a laugh...
Done this a fair bit at the low end
We've hopped back and forth with a few different routes using the low-end stuff: Virtualbox, Parallels before finally setling on KVM for our 4 or 5 VMs
The only problem we've had here has been disk images, and our solution has been to always use raw disk images rather than compressed. When I haven't, I've eventually regretted it: the space you save with a compressed image isn't much, but the time taken to convert between formats when your server drops and you have to bring up a VM on your workstation under a different platform is a royal pain. Disk is cheap, time is expensive.
Back it up!
"Microsoft applications might deliver more when run on Microsoft’s own Hyper-V"
Oh, really?? Can you point to some information about this, because this is the first time I've seen this ascerted, anywhere!
Whoa there buddy!
He did say 'might deliver more' :)
As in, I might win the lottery this weekend, or I might not....
And you can use libvirt to do lifecycle management for most hypervisors too.
For instance if you've got a Linux machine, you can try managing a local ESX server by yum/apt-get installing libvirt and doing:
virsh -c esx://esxserver/ list --all
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders