On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:06 AM, zxq9 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2014 22:52:57 Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Name 2. Seriously. The KVM management tools are *not* good., at least
>> in Scientific Linux 6 or the upstream vendor's toolkits, because the
>> underlying libvirt toolkit is trying to do too many things at once and
>> therefore getting each different virtualization technology wrong in
>> different ways.
>>
>> If you think I'm kidding, go ahead and configure pair-bonding in the
>> virtual appliances.
>
> Aside from the previous reply, I get that you think KVM is a steaming pile how
> does this relate to Yasha's question? More to the point, how do you feel about
> VirtualBox as an enterprise platform?

It's not the KVM itself. It's libvirt and virt-manager the built-in
management tools in Scientific Linux. Virt-manager has gotten
noticeably better, but it's really not up to enterprise support.
*Openstack* might be, I've not had the chance to use it myself yet.
The Virtualbox free tool has its own issues, mostly the lack of
commercial support for it. So definitely, on SL 6 servers and for SL 6
virtualized clients, the free VirtualBox is *really good* for
lightweight use.

For enterprise scale use, of over, say, 5 nodes and with ability to
migrate VM's from one server to another.... I've not tried their
commercial offering. I'd have to try it. I hope it would be as good as
the free server.