5 ms·
Why not proxmox instead? I have never heard of OpenNebula before
by udev4096 2y ago
Why not proxmox instead? I have never heard of OpenNebula before
- quantor_- 2y agoSeems to be focused on two different areas. This comparison [0] argues that proxmox is mainly focused on a centralized solution where as OpenNebula is focused on distributed setups [0] https://cylab.be/publications/64/download/2024-comparison-of-proxmox-and-opennebula-as-cyber-range-platforms.pdf https://cylab.be/publications/64/download/2024-comparison-of...
- udev4096 2y agoSo, their whole decision is based off of which VMM can support qcow import out of the box
- jeroenhd 2y agoBoth seem like excellent options for their use case. At that point, every small benefit helps make a decision. Even the support pricing doesn't seem too far off if you have a reasonably sized cluster. Both are projects with over a decade and a half of development behind it, both use similar virtualisation architectures, and both have easy to use web interfaces, with distributed storage options and cluster management tools.
- ErneX 2y agoOr xcp-ng + xen orchestra.
- udev4096 2y agoxcp-ng is far from stable and lacks significant features
- throw0101d 2y ago> Why not proxmox instead? I have never heard of OpenNebula before Different type of architecture. XCP-ng would also be a closer to fit to how VMware works as well. (I currently run Proxmox at work. At my last job we used OpenStack.)
- NexRebular 2y agoWhy go linux? MNX Triton and vanilla SmartOS are good hypervisor alternatives too.
- mdaniel 2y agoI fished this out of the cylab PDF posted below: https://github.com/OpenNebula/one#readme https://github.com/OpenNebula/one#readme (Apache 2)