Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

Is OVZ 7 stable enough for production yet?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Is OVZ 7 stable enough for production yet?

Planning to get some new hardware and wondering if OVZ 7 is stable enough for production use yet. OVZ 6 has been rock solid for us but it's less than 2 years before security update support ends. I plan to use it for ploop containers and KVM.

Also trying to figure out what the difference is compared Virtuozzo 7 and if that is an option. I guess it's not open source but licensing is optional so it's basically OVZ 7 with license option as far as I can tell. Have never had to modify OVZ 6 software so I don't see the open source aspect that being important.

Tagged:

Comments

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider

    There was a thread kicking around here recently, complaining about some issues with OVZ 7. I don't recall where it is, though, and the Vanilla search is as useless as ever...

    Currently offering Node.js code review, tutoring and advice and custom Node.js module development!
    Appreciate my posts/software/guides? Donate (PayPal/Bitcoin): http://cryto.net/~joepie91/donate.html | irc.freenode.net #lowendbox

    Thanked by 1netomx
  • WSSWSS Member

    Long story short: Not really, and plenty of providers have given up, and/or will run OVZ6 forever.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

    Thanked by 1Eased
  • @LosPollosHermanos I'd make the plunge into LXC personally... get ahead of the market now

  • MikeAMikeA Member, Provider

    If you're getting new hardware, just do KVM. No point in OVZ anymore, if I didn't do it when I started I wouldn't be now. It'll save you problems.

    Thanked by 3WSS FHR maverickp
  • WSSWSS Member

    @MikeA said: If you're getting new hardware, just do KVM. No point in OVZ anymore, if I didn't do it when I started I wouldn't be now. It'll save you problems.

    Unless you deal with the abysmal putrescent offal that is Solus- Then it's even less useful than it is hosting OVZ.

    Oh god, I'm turning into @AnthonySmith.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • OVZ still alive?

    Dude, its 2018, go KVM, its time to stab it.

  • Neoon said: Dude, its 2018, go KVM LXC, its time to stab it.

  • @jiggawattz said:

    Neoon said: Dude, its 2018, go KVM LXC, its time to stab it.

  • WSSWSS Member

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • LosPollosHermanos said: wondering if OVZ 7 is stable enough for production use yet.

    Impossible to answer this, as "yet" implies that OVZ 7 will be stable.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider
    edited February 12

    Is OVZ7 even being developed at this point? Maybe they aren't putting it in a public repos anymore?

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits

    Last commit from December 1st?

    EDIT - Their system is odd in how it branches things:

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits?until=refs/heads/branch-rh7-3.10.0-693.11.6.vz7.42.x-ovz

    January 18th it seems.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Dedicated KVM Slices / Anycast Support! / Stallion Control Panel / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • WSSWSS Member

    @Francisco said: EDIT - Their system is odd in how it branches things:

    Shit's hard to deal with when you're perpetually in 2011.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • omelasomelas Member
    edited February 12

    @Francisco said: Is OVZ7 even being developed at this point? Maybe they aren't putting it in a public repos anymore?

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits

    Last commit from December 1st?

    EDIT - Their system is odd in how it branches things:

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits?until=refs/heads/branch-rh7-3.10.0-693.11.6.vz7.42.x-ovz

    January 18th it seems.

    Francisco

    For whatever reason their system doesn't sort commints by date. lt looks somewhat sorted but it has exceptions. (i see commit from 2015 in middle of 2017 commits and a 2016 commit in 2014s)

  • WSSWSS Member

    @omelas said: For whatever reason their system doesn't sort commints by date. lt looks somewhat sorted but it has exceptions. (i see commit from 2015 in middle of 2017 commits and a 2016 commit in 2014s)

    Ahem... Look up.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • edited February 12

    LXC is NOT any good for hosting. Mostly because of fundamental flaws in security. That is why there is LXD and that is no where near ready last time I checked. Also, a lot of the same arguments against OVZ can be used against LXC/D.

    I don't get how people think KVM is a better alternative. First of all OVZ can also do KVM so you can do that if you want. Containers are waaaay lighter on resources. I have been using KVM for a few years now and kind of hate it actually. OVZ is so much better from an Administrators perspective. I love how I can browse all containers from the node on SIMFS although that is gone now with Ploop.

    Thanked by 1bugrakoc
  • edited February 12

    @Francisco said: Is OVZ7 even being developed at this point? Maybe they aren't putting it in a public repos anymore?

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits

    Last commit from December 1st?

    EDIT - Their system is odd in how it branches things:

    https://src.openvz.org/projects/OVZ/repos/vzkernel/commits?until=refs/heads/branch-rh7-3.10.0-693.11.6.vz7.42.x-ovz

    January 18th it seems.

    Francisco

    ISO's are here. I doubt anyone would be installing from source. https://download.openvz.org/virtuozzo/releases/7.0/x86_64/iso/

  • WSSWSS Member

    @LosPollosHermanos said: I don't get how people think KVM is a better alternative. First of all OVZ can also do KVM so you can do that if you want. Containers are waaaay lighter on resources. I have been using KVM for a few years now and kind of hate it actually. OVZ is so much better from an Administrators perspective. I love how I can browse all containers from the node on SIMFS although that is gone now with Ploop.

    Now I'm not sure who is trolling who.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

    Thanked by 2Wolveix vimalware
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    @LosPollosHermanos said: ISO's are here. I doubt anyone would be installing from source. https://download.openvz.org/virtuozzo/releases/7.0/x86_64/iso/

    Right, but they're over a month old.

    I'm mostly asking...is OVZ still being worked on? I don't know anyone using OVZ7 minus the Cloudlinux people.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Dedicated KVM Slices / Anycast Support! / Stallion Control Panel / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • edited February 13

    @Francisco said:

    @LosPollosHermanos said: ISO's are here. I doubt anyone would be installing from source. https://download.openvz.org/virtuozzo/releases/7.0/x86_64/iso/

    Right, but they're over a month old.

    I'm mostly asking...is OVZ still being worked on? I don't know anyone using OVZ7 minus the Cloudlinux people.

    Francisco

    How often do you think they should be creating new ISO's for you to consider it being worked on? Once you install from ISO you update from YUM. So they don't need to keep releasing new ISO's every time there is an update.

    If Virtualizor got around to supporting LXD I might consider it.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    I would hope they aren't forging these by hand in the depths of mount doom.

    It's safe to assume its probably automated :P

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Dedicated KVM Slices / Anycast Support! / Stallion Control Panel / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • dccdcc Member, Provider

    The thread referenced here is probably about XVM Labs.

    In my opinion OpenVZ 6 is (was) great for certain use cases. With OVZ7 it looks like Parallels are missing the point of OpenVZ entirely - unless they have some sort of a plan which we cannot see/understand (for now ?).

    Just take a look at this: https://openvz.org/Comparison - and try answering a simple question - what advantages OpenVZ 7 has over KVM? I personally have no good answer to that question.

  • edited February 13

    @dcc said: The thread referenced here is probably about XVM Labs.

    In my opinion OpenVZ 6 is (was) great for certain use cases. With OVZ7 it looks like Parallels are missing the point of OpenVZ entirely - unless they have some sort of a plan which we cannot see/understand (for now ?).

    Just take a look at this: https://openvz.org/Comparison - and try answering a simple question - what advantages OpenVZ 7 has over KVM? I personally have no good answer to that question.

    It's a lot lighter on resources. That's it's main advantage. I can run twice as many containers as I can VMs. It's not overselling either. From the customers perspective the containers will still be more reponsive than a KVM even if I have twice as many containers as I would KVMs.

    Storage, memory etc are shared so if it's not used it's available. With KVM if you assign 20GB then it's not available to share. Again, not overselling. Just making much more efficient use of available hardware.

    It's apples and oranges which is why I don't get the comparisons. I get LXC/D vs OVZ but not KVM.

  • dccdcc Member, Provider

    @LosPollosHermanos

    We see the same on our platform, we can put a lot more OpenVZ clients per node than KVM without affecting performance. No disagreement here.

    My problem is with the fact that Parallels does not seem to have a well defined strategy regarding OpenVZ 7, or they fail to communicate it. Which they kind of need to do in order to convince folks like us to spend resources developing for OVZ 7 and then spend even more resources migrating clients from OVZ 6 over.

    Here's a different perspective: when you migrate KVM clients from RHEL6 to RHEL7 nodes, you do not need to change anything, stuff just works. What is the [technical?] reason why OVZ6->7 must be different?

    Hardware costs are always going down and development costs are always going up. At this point for us it makes more sense to deploy 2x more nodes than spend 2x resources on maintaining both KVM + OVZ platforms.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited February 13

    @dcc

    OVZ6 is based on Kernel 2.6, for one. 7 is a 3.x base, which is also ancient, but not <6 years ancient.

    To get OVZ6 running these days, you sometimes have to virtualize it under a KVM just so it'll run on recent hardware, which is ghetto as hell, but it still has less overhead than running pure KVMs.

    I dislike OVZ, but damn it's a lot easier to deal with daily than a ton of KVMs always bursting and pushing their threads..

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • dccdcc Member, Provider
    edited February 13

    @WSS

    We are not observing any issues with 2.6 on modern hardware; even our E3-v6 and E5-v4 nodes are running it no problem. The worst problem we saw so far was broken video driver in kernel (blank screen after grub) on X11SSH and it was an easy fix.

    Interestingly, we see a lot more issues with KVM on exact same hardware, especially with NIC drivers and soft irqs - on all 3.x and 4.12,4.13,4.14 kernels (4.11 was actually pretty decent).

    We tried wrapping OpenVZ in KVM in the past, and it was quickly scrapped as it was indeed ghetto af. One power outage or kernel panic on host and now you have a real shitstorm coming, multiplied by the number of nodes. I realize this can be mitigated with some fine filesystem tuning (inside and outside of KVM container), but we just could not see a good reason to continue this exercise. Though I realize some hardware may very well require such approach.

    KVM is a lot trickier when it comes to resource and network abuse, that is for sure.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • WSSWSS Member

    @dcc You're not having an issue with modern ethernet and the like with OVZ, but are with KVM? That's peculiar. I guess that's the luck of the draw, or you're deliberately speccing your equipment for the task. Either way, Kudos.

    As far as NIC/bridge issues, this tends to happen with crappier chipsets (RealTek, I'm looking at you), and isn't so much a KVM problem, as it is an implementation issue for bridging (veth) vs essentially aliasing (venet), so it's not really a fair comparison, IMO.

    KVM is not the easiest to manage and mitigate issues without being smart about processes and watching the network utilization - which is annoying to do when you're not monitoring your users, but you still have to watch for attacks from within. Not horribly difficult, but it's still hands-on. That said, under OVZ, it is quite a bit easier to identify abuse. :)

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • edited February 13

    @dcc said: @LosPollosHermanos

    We see the same on our platform, we can put a lot more OpenVZ clients per node than KVM without affecting performance. No disagreement here.

    My problem is with the fact that Parallels does not seem to have a well defined strategy regarding OpenVZ 7, or they fail to communicate it. Which they kind of need to do in order to convince folks like us to spend resources developing for OVZ 7 and then spend even more resources migrating clients from OVZ 6 over.

    Here's a different perspective: when you migrate KVM clients from RHEL6 to RHEL7 nodes, you do not need to change anything, stuff just works. What is the [technical?] reason why OVZ6->7 must be different?

    Hardware costs are always going down and development costs are always going up. At this point for us it makes more sense to deploy 2x more nodes than spend 2x resources on maintaining both KVM + OVZ platforms.

    I think you made some good points. I was trying to get rid of my remaining KVM servers but the damn customers won't cancel :). I can move servers KVM > OVZ or the other direction. It's a one line rsync command. So that's not a problem. KVM is definitely more compatible because of the full virtualization. We run into a lot of issues with that virtual eth interface on OVZ. I think it looks more like a real interface on OVZ 7 though so maybe that's not so much of a problem anymore.

    Is Parallels still involved in OVZ or is it some other company? I think it might be a spin off or something. I know one of the main kernel guys left and he was really good.

  • WSSWSS Member

    @LosPollosHermanos said: I can move servers KVM > OVZ or the other direction. It's a one line rsync command. So that's not a problem.

    I want to see this.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • edited February 13

    @WSS said:

    @LosPollosHermanos said: I can move servers KVM > OVZ or the other direction. It's a one line rsync command. So that's not a problem.

    I want to see this.

    It's just an rsync from one server to the other. Both running the same version of OS with latest yum updates. Exclude the low level stuff and set rsync flags so that permissions are preserved. I'm not sure if half of those excludes are even necessary.

    rsync --exclude /etc/fstab --exclude /dev --exclude /etc/udev --exclude \ /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts --exclude /etc/inittab --exclude /etc/init \ --exclude=/boot --exclude=/proc --exclude=/lib/modules --exclude=/sys \ -e "ssh -p 22" --numeric-ids -avpogtStlHz [email protected]:/ /

    Works either direction. I have also done it to/from VMWare. Above command assumes CentOS pulling from OVZ/KVM source to KVM/OVZ destination. I haven't tried with Debian. I think some of the exclude folders would be different. Add --dry-run to test.

    Try doing something like that on Windows!

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    dcc said: The thread referenced here is probably about XVM Labs.

    In my opinion OpenVZ 6 is (was) great for certain use cases. With OVZ7 it looks like Parallels are missing the point of OpenVZ entirely - unless they have some sort of a plan which we cannot see/understand (for now ?).

    Just take a look at this: https://openvz.org/Comparison - and try answering a simple question - what advantages OpenVZ 7 has over KVM? I personally have no good answer to that question.

    They're trying to become a 'all in one' platform since their 'Virtual Machines' are just KVM.

    I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    Maybe I should sit down and get that sorted out for them.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Dedicated KVM Slices / Anycast Support! / Stallion Control Panel / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • WSSWSS Member

    @LosPollosHermanos said: It's just an rsync from one server to the other.

    Well, we all know that won't work for all users. I thought you were attempting to support different distributions/et al back and forth between OVZ and KVM, and that's where it gets hairy. :)

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • @Francisco said: I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you, in which case it's a bit odd to speak of "really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move".

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

    Thanked by 1WSS
  • WSSWSS Member
    edited February 13

    @angstrom said:

    @Francisco said: I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you, in which case it's a bit odd to speak of "really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move".

    Some people are stubborn and refuse to let go, and will find someone else to buy the product they want in the case that you don't have it.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • @WSS said:

    @angstrom said:

    @Francisco said: I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you, in which case it's a bit odd to speak of "really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move".

    Some people are stubborn and refuse to let go, and will find someone else to buy the product they want in the case that you don't have it.

    If so, then that is what he should say. :-)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • WSSWSS Member

    @angstrom said:

    @WSS said:

    @angstrom said:

    @Francisco said: I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you, in which case it's a bit odd to speak of "really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move".

    Some people are stubborn and refuse to let go, and will find someone else to buy the product they want in the case that you don't have it.

    If so, then that is what he should say. :-)

    I think he was just humblebragging, myself.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • @WSS said:

    @angstrom said:

    @WSS said:

    @angstrom said:

    @Francisco said: I'm in a similar position, I don't want to waste my energy coding on OpenVZ anymore and would much rather being able to gut it out of Stallion completely.

    I have a lot of really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move though so I'm not going to force them. Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you, in which case it's a bit odd to speak of "really stubborn OVZ people that don't want to move".

    Some people are stubborn and refuse to let go, and will find someone else to buy the product they want in the case that you don't have it.

    If so, then that is what he should say. :-)

    I think he was just humblebragging, myself.

    I hadn't realized that they offered free backups on OpenVZ. (It seems that it's only in Las Vegas and for the 256MB+ OpenVZ plans, but still, not bad.)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

  • Francisco said: Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    Couldn't you give a free backup on top of their KVM for those (old) customers (when they'll cancel you'll slowly have less and less backup space in use).

  • edited February 13

    @datanoise said:

    Francisco said: Many of them love the free backups we give on OVZ and don't on KVM's.

    Couldn't you give a free backup on top of their KVM for those (old) customers (when they'll cancel you'll slowly have less and less backup space in use).

    Backups are a lot bigger with KVM. Compression doesn't seem to save much because it's a block level backup (I think). That's for RAW, maybe it's different with QCOW.

    With OVZ, you just backup the container folder like you would any other folder. I think vzdump is just a tar.gz backup that also includes the CTID.conf file. So more straight forward and smaller backups.

    One more reason I prefer OVZ over KVM.

    Thanked by 2WSS datanoise
  • WSSWSS Member

    @LosPollosHermanos said: Here's the thing with KVM. You have to backup the whole thing. So if you have a 50GB customer the backup will be 50GB. You can compress it but that doesn't seem to save much because it's a block level backup (I think). That's for RAW, maybe it's different with QCOW.

    With OVZ, you only backup what is being used and can compress all the files inside. So someone on a 50GB plan may only have a few GB to backup after compression.

    One more reason I prefer OVZ over KVM.

    Because filesystem level access to host is preferred to a large data blob? I'm not sure why you are so die-hard OVZ, but really, it makes my life easier, even though you think it makes yours the same.

    This place just isn't the same; You know where to find me if you want me.

  • mkshmksh Member

    @LosPollosHermanos said: Backups are a lot bigger with KVM. Compression doesn't seem to save much because it's a block level backup (I think). That's for RAW, maybe it's different with QCOW.

    Sure QCOW will be smaller (and slower). Until i have used my disk to take a backup of /dev/urandom that is. Neither RAW or QCOW are all that great anyways unless by RAW you mean physical partitions or something backed by LVM.

    Anyways as long as your costumers aren't playing with encryption or writing random shit to disk you might have some luck with one of the more exotic compression tools like LRZIP.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    angstrom said: But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you

    True, but that's only 128MB's that we offer, nothing else.

    I've already discussed doing a one-off RAM bump to make them 'workable' on KVM. I'd have to never offer the product again though otherwise it could cannibalize other products.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Dedicated KVM Slices / Anycast Support! / Stallion Control Panel / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
    Thanked by 1angstrom
  • @Francisco said:

    angstrom said: But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you

    True, but that's only 128MB's that we offer, nothing else.

    I've already discussed doing a one-off RAM bump to make them 'workable' on KVM. I'd have to never offer the product again though otherwise it could cannibalize other products.

    Oh, you're right: I glanced at this page earlier, https://my.frantech.ca/cart.php?gid=12 , and thought that all of the OpenVZ plans were available except for the biggest one, which explicitly says "Out of Stock". (But I didn't look further.)

    "[T]he number of UNIX installations has grown to 16, with more expected." (K. Thompson & D. M. Ritchie, UNIX Programmer's Manual, 3ed, 1973)

    Thanked by 2Francisco WSS
  • edited February 14

    @Francisco said:

    angstrom said: But since you still offer OpenVZ plans, it's not as though it were a discontinued product line for you

    True, but that's only 128MB's that we offer, nothing else.

    I've already discussed doing a one-off RAM bump to make them 'workable' on KVM. I'd have to never offer the product again though otherwise it could cannibalize other products.

    Francisco

    That's another advantage of containers in general. Since they do not run a kernel you save anywhere from 10-35MB of memory per container. That matters when the container is only 128MB.

Sign In or Register to comment.