I don't believe they do, but its not about that. its about capacity. To get the most out of your really expensive hyperv datacenter license, you should load it up with as many windows vm's as you can. A physical machine can only handle a fixed number of vm's max. If you put a linux vm on it, thats one less windows vm you can launch there, meaning you have to buy more datacenter physical nodes/licenses, which adds cost.
While I havent explored this option, it might be possible to buy datacenter hyperv licenses for your windows vm's, and put them in one host aggrigate, and buy cheaper windows licenses for hyperv for free os's and put them in another, and run things that way. Though you will still be paying more for windows licenses then if you did kvm for the free os's. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: matt [m...@nycresistor.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:36 AM To: Fox, Kevin M Cc: maishsk+openst...@maishsk.com; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Hypervisor decision I was under the impression hyper-v didn't charge a per seat license on non windows instances? On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov>> wrote: So, in the pets vs cattle cloud philosophy, you want to be able to have as many cattle as you need, rather then limit the sets to a smaller number of more pet like things. kvm allows unlimited numbers of vm's, which is very cloudy. but due to Windows licensing, tends to only work well with linux/bsd VM's. Windows is a whole nother kettle of fish. They either license it per vm, which is very pet like, or alternately, the more cattle friendly way is to buy a DataCenter* version of windows. Each hypervisor needs to be the DataCenter version, but it allows you to run unlimited Windows VM's on that hypervisor. So if you want to run lots of windows cattle, its can be the way to go. Due to its high cost, it does not usually make sense to run all your linux vm's on Windows DataCenter version, so you run both kvm for linux/bsd vm's and Windows DataCenter licensed hyperv for windows vm's. * http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: Maish Saidel-Keesing [mais...@maishsk.com<mailto:mais...@maishsk.com>] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:19 AM To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Hypervisor decision That is interesting Tim. Why Hyper-V if I may ask? Why not stick just with KVM? Maish On 19/03/15 08:22, Tim Bell wrote: At CERN, we run KVM and Hyper-V. Both work fine. Depending on the size of your cluster, you may have other factors to consider such as monitoring and configuration management. We use Puppet to configure both environnments. Images are tagged with a property hypervisor_type which is used to schedule workloads to the appropriate hypervisor. Tim From: matt [mailto:m...@nycresistor.com] Sent: 18 March 2015 23:24 To: Abel Lopez Cc: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Hypervisor decision most openstack environments at kvm, so if you want to stick with the herd, that's the way to go. On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Abel Lopez <alopg...@gmail.com<mailto:alopg...@gmail.com>> wrote: Interesting topic, since you're already running Hyper-v and ESX, I'm inferring that your workload is heavy on windows VMs. If you're doing majority windows, and minority linux, stick with hyper-v. The benchmarks I've read show that windows VMs run fastest on hyper-v VS all others. If you expect an even split, it might make sense to create Host Aggregates of various hypervisiors like hyper-v and KVM, and utilize extra-specs in the flavors and guest images to aid in scheduling, for example "Windows images launch on the hyper-v pool" > On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Vytenis Silgalis > <vsilga...@outlook.com<mailto:vsilga...@outlook.com>> wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm looking to champion openstack at my company, we currently run both a > small hyper-v cluster and 3 VMware clusters. However we are not married to > any specific hypervisor. What I'm looking for is recommendations for which > hypervisor we should look at for our openstack environments and the > pros/con's people have run into with the various hypervisors supported by > openstack. > > > Thanks, > Vytenis > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators -- Best Regards, Maish Saidel-Keesing _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
