At our facility, we have an OpenStack-based private cloud that we worked with Sardina Systems to put in place. It is production and we have not had any problems

At our facility, we have an OpenStack-based private cloud that we worked with Sardina Systems to put in place. It is production and we have not had any problems with it. We have also undergone upgrade from Mitaka to Newton with zero-downtime and completed within a day (I understand that zero-downtime upgrade is a capability specific to Sardina FishOS). We will be upgrading to Ocata in the coming months. We have found that in cloud, it is critical to separate the Operator role vs Consumer role. OpenStack is primarily Operator-facing, who are in turn providing the capabilities to serve certain Consumers. OpenStack enables the Operator to flexibly provide virtualized compute environment requested by the Consumer, while the Consumer does not care how the compute environment is provided by the Operator. With this view, lots of things become clear. Granted, not everyone in the OpenStack world have this view, but we are sure glad that we do from the early on! Our deployment is not the largest, but we aren't small either (several hundred hypervisors). We are an organization of several 10's of thousand people, though the user base at the moment is still in the hundreds. A number of comments here mentioned that they had live migration problems. We have not had these problems. It worked from the very beginning for us. Our view was that we would work with a vendor on OpenStack, rather than trying to string together the parts, in the same way that we don't string together the parts that make up a Linux distribution. FishOS makes it simple for us -- and that's before looking at operational tools in the product. I have not been involved in the commercial terms, but my understanding is that commercially we have TCO that would be hard to match otherwise.