Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Cloud Microsoft Open Source Software Virtualization News Technology

OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V 73

Posted by timothy
from the time-to-trim-the-christmas-list dept.
judgecorp writes "The OpenStack open source cloud project has removed Hyper-V from its infrastructure as a service (IaaS) framework, saying Microsoft's support for its hypervisor technology is 'broken.' This will embarass Microsoft, as major partners such as Dell and HP support OpenStack, along with service providers such as Internap." Adds reader alphadogg, this "means the code will be removed when the next version of OpenStack, called Essex, is released in the second quarter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V

Comments Filter:
  • A Solid Decision (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tohuw (1641271) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:39PM (#38903537) Homepage
    As someone who has spent a great amount of time trying to manage a Hyper-V infrastructure, I can say this was a completely appropriate move and criticism of the product. The management and maintenance of Hyper-V is abysmal, in my experience.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:52PM (#38903741)

    It's easy to just ditch any Microsoft technology. But for once, Hyper-v isn't totally crap. It's a way better than ESXi, and comparable to Xen (in fact, they got their inspiration from working with Xen guys, and the architecture is the same as for Xen). The issue here, btw, wasn't hyper-v itself, just its support inside OpenStack.

    i realize what the article was about, i was simply making an observation based on parent comment. however, saying hyper-v is better than esxi is a laughable statement at best. you've clearly been using different products than i have.

  • Re:A Solid Decision (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:28PM (#38904173)

    I manage a multiple large vSphere clusters (50 or so ESXi servers each per vcenter) and multiple Hyper V clusters (2-12 nodes each per cluster and about 15 clusters). Installing, managing, and maintining the ESX clusters takes about 10% of the time even though we have 3x as many ESX servers. Installing, mananging, and maintaining the MS Hyper V clusters takes the other 90%. I'll admit, I have been working with ESX since the 2.x days and although I've been maintaining MS servers for 12 or so years, I;ve only been using Hyper V for about 2 years. I would think though that in 2 years, I would be better at it but there are times I have no idea what are Hyper V clusters are doing. The MS cluster manager is a joke, the SCVMM is a joke. Examples.. Several volumes of out clustered shared volumes are running in redirected mode? Why and where is that logged? What server is having trouble with the storage? All can see the strorage native. Why are my VM moves failing and getting errors that the cluster resource can not be found? You mean I have to remove the specific cluster from SCVMM and readd it to clear that DB inconsistancy up? If you have a network issue with one of more of your Hyper V servers. Should I troubleshoot a that network issue from the cluster validation tool, the MS cluster manager, the Hyper V console, the local control panal, or the SCVMM? ARGHHH! The whole thing and its many different interfaces and management consoles makes the whole thing a random beast.

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354