Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Cloud Microsoft Open Source Software Virtualization News Technology

OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V 73

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Hard for someone on the outside to know whether it's truly broken or this is a case of "it's too hard, let's leave it out and blame Microsoft".
    • by Ynot_82 ( 1023749 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:10PM (#38903147)

      It's not hard to believe Hyper-V is broken

      About 2 years ago, the Linux kernel devs threatened to kick the Hyper-V kernel driver out of mainline because of lack of maintenance
      The original guys from MS who submitted the code just disappeared, not responding to emails or requests for code clean-up

      Not sure what MS's game is with Hyper-V, but they don't seem that interested in making a decent hypervisor....

      • by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:21PM (#38903269)
        The hypervisor is fine, the Linux drivers have been cleaned up and the maintainer says everything is good now. Microsoft has made the same pledge to OpenStack, that they will work with them to clean up the code.
        • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          Looks like they are still at the embrace stage since hyper-v is still a new and relatively small player in the market.
          The question is, do you think they would be doing anything at all to facilitate running anything other than windows if they dominated the market? More than likely they would actually go out of their way to make it difficult...

          If MS succeed in dominating the virtualization market and eliminating vmware/xen/kvm, you can bet that's what will happen...

      • I'd say its just another victim of Steve Ballmer's "ZOMFG I Want to be the head of Apple soooo bad!" lack of vision. if you look at what MSFT has been doing the past few years its pretty obvious Ballmer has a raging boner for Apple products and wants to be "cool" so bad it hurts. I mean they could have easily taken the business mobile spot away from RIM thanks to AD and Exchange to tie the mobile devices to but instead he has blown boatloads of cash trying to buy his way into the consumer space with abortio

    • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:33PM (#38903439) Journal

      Here is the key passage from the article, should you read it.

      “Ah, never mind. They really don’t care.”

      The "They" is Microsoft, and the guy saying it is person Microsoft has a liaison for the project.

      Also, it is too hard to maintain code you don't have control over. Microsoft drafted someone else to develop the code, that organization was bought by Citrix who owns Zen Hyper-V, a competing project. Again mentioned in the article.

      So, this is not just normal Microsoft Bashing by /. (well, it is) this is something that Microsoft deserves. Microsoft better start focusing on core competencies to support of Enterprise Infrastructure and Windows or it is going to find itself shrinking rapidly.

      • by afidel ( 530433 )
        Microsoft has an enterprise management tool for Hyper-V, it's called Service Center Virtual Machine Manager and as you mention they've partnered with Citrix to have the ZenServer management tools able to manage Hyper-V, cloudstack is just a third such tool and IMHO the least likely to be used since most shops haven't gone cloud yet.
    • The if you don't know, don't ASSUME that this is propaganda. The reality is that there's not enough contribution to have Hyper-v support up to shape for a release. Though it might work through libvirt. It's just that the hyper-v specific driver is getting away, not the full of hyper-v support. Also, it might well come back if someone cares. Openstack is really open in its development and governance, and contributions (even from Microsoft) are more than welcome!
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Does MS want it to work?

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Well, if hyper-v is considerably harder to support than any of its many competitors then that's good reason not to use it... Why expend all that extra effort for something that brings so little extra to the table?

      Also hyper-v is take 2 from ms, they previously had a product called "virtual server" which they pushed for a couple of years, and then dropped totally and then later told people to wait for hyper-v... I would be extremely wary about investing in a product from a company that has a history of dropp

  • Wrong Summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:03PM (#38903035) Homepage

    As I read the article, it says that OpenStep's support for Hyper-V is broken or incomplete, leading to its removal from of Hyper-V support from the OpenStep codebase. The summary here could be read either as Microsoft support for OpenStep is broken, or Microsoft support for its own Hyper-V product is broken, neither of which appears to be the case.

    In other words, OpenStep users haven't adopted Hyper-V widely or spent a lot of time working on the OpenStep code, and so that part of the tree has fallen into disrepair and it's being removed as not having sufficient interest.

    That's my guess...perhaps someone with more knowledge could clarify?

    “Just as Nova enters feature freeze, it sounds like a good moment to consider removing deprecated, known-buggy-and-unmaintained or useless feature code from the Essex tree, “ he wrote.

    In reply, Ken Pepple, director of cloud development at Internap Network Services, wrote: “”Hyper-V support is missing support for even the most basic functions – volumes, Glance, several network managers, etc. We investigated it for our service, but found it only borderline functional.”

    • by pavon ( 30274 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:28PM (#38903377)

      Microsoft has been trying to push Hyper-V support into Linux, but their original driver code was complete shit, and it's just barely starting to get better. It's almost stable now, but not fully functional. So, yes it is fair to say that Hyper-V support is being removed from OpenStack because Microsoft's support for Hyper-V on Linux has been very poor.

    • Re:Wrong Summary (Score:5, Informative)

      by GPLHost-Thomas ( 1330431 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:20PM (#38904057)

      As I read the article

      Frankly, you'd better read the Openstack dev list thread about "dead wood cutting" on launchpad [], because that's where the article is taking information from (where else could this info be?). It has *never* been said that OpenStack is "ditching" Hyper-V by the way, but that it's just being removed from the Essex release, because it's currently in frozen state (currently only bugfix are accepted, until Essex is released), and Hyper-V isn't up-to-shape.

    • by Locutus ( 9039 )
      Microsoft saw fit to do a press release about their partnership with to provide support for Microsofts Hyper-V in OpenStack but when Citrix purchased Microsoft dropped the ball keeping the Hyper-V support going and it was their responsibility.

      here's Microsoft's press release:

      I wouldn't doubt for a minute though that the reason for the original partnership was for a bullet point on a presentation showing ei
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @12:15PM (#38903185)

    If you read the ML message (here : you'll see all the reasons.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I read this as "OpenStack support for Hyper-V is unmaintained and/or broken". This does not mean Hyper-V is broken, but it does mean that Microsoft either did not contribute to OpenStack or what they contribute sucks.

      While this is not quite the same a "Hyper-V" sucks, it is very close to "Microsoft support for Hyper-V sucks".

      • by EXTomar ( 78739 )

        But there are bugs logged against Hyper-V and they haven't gotten satisfactory resolution. Since random programmers can't fix bugs or implement missing features then that falls under "broken" and should be removed if they want to move into a "candidate for release" state.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Well, the core problem is that either Microsoft does not care about OpenStack or they are doing their well-known and world-famous incompetent engineering. My personal interpretation is that this is a warning to them.

      • And also completely different from "Openstack is ditching Hyper-V" as this /. title is trying to let us believe! It's removed from the next release only, but we'd be happy to see it come back.
  • After fighting with openstack on my hardware for months with no success, this will be the final straw that pushes me to a 100% Azure.stack.
    • Why is it remotely interesting to use Hyper-V with Openstack even in theory? MS has their own tooling and if you don't want to use it, why would you want Hyper-V over the more spiritually similar Xen or KVM hypervisors? I've been in a few situations where people have mentioned this but aside from an academic concept of 'completeness', I haven't heard an explanation of the practical relevance of the combination instead of leaving the proprietary stacks to their own efforts.

      • Why is it remotely interesting to use Hyper-V with Openstack even in theory?

        For all sorts of reasons, one of them having a full support for EC2 and S3 APIs.

  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • THIS gets a +5? Seriously? For what is basically a fancily worded "M$ Sux" post? How about a little more information since you are "someone who has spent a great amount of time trying to manage a Hyper-V infrastructure" and tell us WHY it is abysmal, huh Tohuw? Was it the tools? Did it use too much resources? Not support feature X that you required?

      At least when i say i'm disliking a product i list what has been going wrong for me so that others can see if they are experiencing the same, just saying "This

      • by Tohuw ( 1641271 )
        Calm yourself. Your request for further details is perfectly reasonable, but your outrage dilutes your stance. To answer your question: Nearly every facility of the management interface is either incomplete or woefully underperforming compared to its competitors. But here are a few key points: 1) Snapshot management is atrocious. Snapshotting an active VM takes hours (!!!) and often fails, and existing snapshots are entirely linear, such that if I roll back to a snapshot, take a snapshot and roll back to
  • by certain death ( 947081 ) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @01:41PM (#38904365)
    To the folks who said maybe the guys at CloudStack might think it is too hard to implement Hyper-V: WTF have you been smoking? These are the guys who built this from scratch, I doubt something would be "Too Hard" or that they were in some way too lazy to do it. To the folks who said Xen is not even in the picture: WTF have _YOU_ been smoking? Let's see...who uses Xen? RedHat, Oracle, Citrix, Microsoft (yep, they sure do!) and a host of other people from my measly little home box to MASSIVE hosting companies. My two centavos...
  • Hyper-V contributions to OpenStack by Microsoft initially worked, or they wouldn't have been accepted.

    There's no such thing as "bit rot", there are only people who fail to maintain binary backward compatibility in their products as they move forward, as OpenStack has done here.

    Lack of interface contracts is probably one of the biggest barriers to commercial software sales in Open Source environments. I don't blame OpenStack for dropping the support, but I do blame them for breaking binary compatibility, an

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      The world moves on, and things have to change in order to improve...
      Sure, the initial design could have been better and thus more flexible and easier to adapt to change, for instance the basic design of unix hasn't changed much and the basic unix design now powers huge numbers of different devices. But still, there are limits and always unforeseen new requirements.

      MS have subjected their customers to this many times too, there are many situations where compatibility has been broken, or even worse situations

      • The last analogy was a reference to the book "Who Moved My Cheese?". But you didn't like it, so let's try another one.

        A commercial company is like a large cargo ship loaded with containers, and an Open Source project is like a sail boat. If you want to move a lot of freight reliably in one trip, you use the cargo ship. If you want to be able to change direction quickly to explore a lot of directions and could care less about cargo, you use the sailboat.

        But a sailboat that wants to lead a cargo ship aroun

        • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          Solaris yes, backwards compatibility is very good...
          OSX is an especially poor example, Apple dropped compatibility completely with OS9 in the name of progress and thus we have OSX at all. They then moved to a completely different hardware architecture, again dropping compatibility...
          Apple have also deprecated a number of older APIs in the name of progress.
          Windows retains a fairly high level of backwards compatibility, but its not perfect and it comes at a huge cost in the form of some very crufty hacks, mas

          • Solaris yes, backwards compatibility is very good...
            OSX is an especially poor example, Apple dropped compatibility completely with OS9 in the name of progress and thus we have OSX at all. They then moved to a completely different hardware architecture, again dropping compatibility...
            Apple have also deprecated a number of older APIs in the name of progress.

            That's BS. Apple maintained binary backward compatibility with 68K Mac OS for multiple releases, then kept maintaining support for older programs using the Blue Box (Classic) environment. When the Intel switchover happened, they again maintained binary compatibility with PPC software over several releases using Rosetta.

            Carbon was a stopgap solution that was not intended to survive transition to native APIs, yet stayed around far longer than it should have. It finally got shot in the head when 64 bit GUI

            • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

              Sure Apple make an effort to maintain compatibility, but that effort is as you pointed out limited, typically to 3 release cycles... At which point, the older stuff is cut off completely.
              Solaris 11 can still run binaries from the first versions of Solaris (early 90s), it might even be able to run bins from sunos 4.x still tho i don't have any to try.
              Windows 7 can still run most win32 binaries from NT3, and some dos and win16 binaries.
              Linux can still run a.out binaries and older libc5 compiled bins (although

              • You're side-tracking.

                Hyper-V got "broken" over a single release by an arbitrary OpenStack change that didn't try at all.

                Hyper-V was broken by OpenStack in less than the 3 year amortization schedule for computer hardware and software permitted by FAS (Federal Accounting Standards). If they want to be taken as a serious comercial-competitive product, they have to permit the accountants to keep old software they work with around 3 years.

                Your OS X examples all have one thing in common: 5-10 years before the of

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"