CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream – Blog.CentOS.org
blog.centos.org
How does this affect us? How does this affect KnownHost's plans for the future?
End of the line for CentOS
- Thread starter Jon Hill
- Start date
blog.centos.org
How does this affect us? How does this affect KnownHost's plans for the future?
Jon,
I came here looking for the same information. The more I read, I think KnownHost will take their time deciding and planning for any migrations. We are on 7.9 currently. According to Red Hat, Maintenance Support 2 ends in June 2024. So they have 3 years to develop and implement a plan. I have about half a dozen CentOS VMs in-house running Ad-Hoc services, so I have to do the same. I will likely move to another distro (Debian) for those.
However for KnownHost to simplify the migration of existing CentOS boxes, I would expect them to choose another distro in the RHEL family. With corporations looking for options, Rocky Linux may get a bunch of financial support now - https://rockylinux.org/ and become what CentOS was, a stable downstream RHEL option.
I came here looking for the same information. The more I read, I think KnownHost will take their time deciding and planning for any migrations. We are on 7.9 currently. According to Red Hat, Maintenance Support 2 ends in June 2024. So they have 3 years to develop and implement a plan. I have about half a dozen CentOS VMs in-house running Ad-Hoc services, so I have to do the same. I will likely move to another distro (Debian) for those.
However for KnownHost to simplify the migration of existing CentOS boxes, I would expect them to choose another distro in the RHEL family. With corporations looking for options, Rocky Linux may get a bunch of financial support now - https://rockylinux.org/ and become what CentOS was, a stable downstream RHEL option.
Howdy @Jon Hill and @ChadB ,
So overall we're not fairly concerned with the CentOS developments and this is why.
blog.cloudlinux.com
I've known Igor for quite a few years now and have no doubt that with their infrastructure they will be able to produce a solid CentOS replacement to keep things moving forward. We've also been in contact with the other vendors and the general consensus is this is nothing to panic over, but it is a massive shift.
Regarding why we offer both OpenVZ and KVM is mainly due to the capabilities. OpenVZ is a para virtualization that does not provide it's own kernel. By doing so we're able to pass along hardware level speeds with little overhead. This keeps the product competitive while fulfilling the vast majority of a customers needs. On the basics, they are SSD based hardware nodes with localized storage. Our KVM offering on the other hand is fully virtualized with its own custom kernel per VPS. This can allow more control (KernelCare, CloudLinux os, custom kernel modules) over OpenVZ but it is also a true cloud product. We use a distributed storage architecture for our Cloud product line so your data doesn't reside on a single server, or a single storage array but is striped and mirrored across hundreds of SSD's and dozens of storage nodes.
Hope this helps answer your questions.
Thanks!
So overall we're not fairly concerned with the CentOS developments and this is why.
Announcing Open-sourced & Community-Driven RHEL Fork by CloudLinux
Red Hat just killed CentOS as we know it. In response, CloudLinux plans to release a free, open-sourced, 1:1 binary compatible fork of RHEL® 8.
blog.cloudlinux.com
I've known Igor for quite a few years now and have no doubt that with their infrastructure they will be able to produce a solid CentOS replacement to keep things moving forward. We've also been in contact with the other vendors and the general consensus is this is nothing to panic over, but it is a massive shift.
Regarding why we offer both OpenVZ and KVM is mainly due to the capabilities. OpenVZ is a para virtualization that does not provide it's own kernel. By doing so we're able to pass along hardware level speeds with little overhead. This keeps the product competitive while fulfilling the vast majority of a customers needs. On the basics, they are SSD based hardware nodes with localized storage. Our KVM offering on the other hand is fully virtualized with its own custom kernel per VPS. This can allow more control (KernelCare, CloudLinux os, custom kernel modules) over OpenVZ but it is also a true cloud product. We use a distributed storage architecture for our Cloud product line so your data doesn't reside on a single server, or a single storage array but is striped and mirrored across hundreds of SSD's and dozens of storage nodes.
Hope this helps answer your questions.
Thanks!
Thanks, Daniel. So KVM runs multiple OS instances on a hypervisor. OpenVZ is a single kernel instance with shared resources.
To put things in terms that a customer might care about, KVM is more secure, allows more control (OS customization and configuration), and uses much faster storage (striped SSD would be faster than plain SSD). I did some googling just now and read that OpenVZ servers are frequently oversold, so are typically cheaper (but provide less reliable performance). Is that a fair summary?
I may be an outlier, but to me, your OpenVZ and KVM offerings are both cloud service offerings, so naming them VPS Hosting vs. Cloud Hosting is confusing. How is Cloud Hosting more cloudy than your OpenVZ offering?
I see that the website says that Cloud Hosting is KVM Cloud Hosting, which is helpful, but I don't see mention of OpenVZ in the description of the VPS Hosting. It might be a useful sales tool to have a section on the VPS Hosting page explaining how the KVM offering might be of interest to people who need even better performance, control, security, customizability.
BTW, I think my VPS is running faster on the Georgia node than it did in Texas. I haven't benchmarked it, but it feels faster when I am interacting with webpages.
Also, KnownHost support is fantastic. In case you didn't know.
To put things in terms that a customer might care about, KVM is more secure, allows more control (OS customization and configuration), and uses much faster storage (striped SSD would be faster than plain SSD). I did some googling just now and read that OpenVZ servers are frequently oversold, so are typically cheaper (but provide less reliable performance). Is that a fair summary?
I may be an outlier, but to me, your OpenVZ and KVM offerings are both cloud service offerings, so naming them VPS Hosting vs. Cloud Hosting is confusing. How is Cloud Hosting more cloudy than your OpenVZ offering?
I see that the website says that Cloud Hosting is KVM Cloud Hosting, which is helpful, but I don't see mention of OpenVZ in the description of the VPS Hosting. It might be a useful sales tool to have a section on the VPS Hosting page explaining how the KVM offering might be of interest to people who need even better performance, control, security, customizability.
BTW, I think my VPS is running faster on the Georgia node than it did in Texas. I haven't benchmarked it, but it feels faster when I am interacting with webpages.
Also, KnownHost support is fantastic. In case you didn't know.
In simplified terms that's correct.
Not necessarily. It's a very common misconception that KVM services cannot be oversold. Pretty much any technology can be oversold, and for the prices that most all services are sold for on the market, speaking frankly, they have to be over provisioned to make a profit on. However, the difference comes in to effect on how they are managed and handled on the backend. For example, at KnownHost we continually monitor all servers for resource usage and balance customer needs to ensure performance.
So, Cloud has been bastardized a lot in marketing, which causes a lot of confusion. In the truest term something that is 'cloud' is distributed across multiple physical machines. For example, our OpenVZ offerings are located on a single machine both for storage needs and compute needs, where as our Cloud KVM is just that. Your KVM instance is running on a compute node, and your data is stored on our distributed storage architecture which spreads that data across dozens of storage nodes. You get extra redundancy in the fact that it's something that is very resilient to hardware failures, and since the data is distributed even if the compute node which is serving your KVM decides to go up in smoke, no data has to be moved to boot your instance on a new compute node which makes recovery exponentially faster. The downside being, it's a much more expensive back-end architecture and thus is reflected in the price.
I'll take a look over it and see if we can't add a few more descriptors to things. I've got a few items in the works as well to announce soon
That's good to hear, we've done a lot of work to upgrade our network and being in Atlanta with staff on-site has allowed us to really drill down on a few topics. We don't want to be satisfied with where we are at, and will continue to improve and expand
Also, KnownHost support is fantastic. In case you didn't know.
That's awesome, I'm glad to hear it!
It's a mix of both, nothing in the computer world is ever a set it and forget it. Every technology requires continual upkeep and maintenance to ensure good performance.