There are 91 people participated. votes gathered from 19 May till 1 July 2015.
How long do you use OpenVZ?
What are the reasons for choosing OpenVZ among other container-based solutions?
What do you use OpenVZ for
How big is your team supporting OpenVZ deployment
Further plans with OpenVZ
How many hardware servers do you use with OpenVZ?
| Voices | Amount of servers |
| 1 | 10 |
| 3 | 20-30 |
| 15 | <10 |
| 5 | 10-20 |
| 1 | 100+ |
| 1 | 10+ |
| 1 | ~100 |
| 1 | 80 |
| 1 | 1600 |
| 1 | 160+ |
| 1 | 60 |
| 1 | 45 |
| 1 | 50 |
| 1 | None now (using upstream kernels) |
What features are absent in OpenVZ from your point of view?
Note: Answers with more than 1 voice
| Voices | Answer | Description | Current decision |
| 7 | Modern kernel support (at least RHEL7 kernel) | Reasons: There are a two main problems with stable 2.6.32 patches: modern hardware requires 3.x kernels, and latest user-space utilities (i.e. systemd) doesn't work with 2.6.x kernels. It's great, I just really hate being stuck with such an old kernel. I know it gets updated regularly but it's still technically almost 6 years old. | In progress |
| 5 | Good web interface (cluster management: adding nodes, quorum management, logs, etc ) | An entry-level web panel. OpenVZ Web Panel seems somewhat popular but I've always been turned off by its reliance on Ruby... and unsure of its security-related testing. The recent Packt Publishing boot, "Essential OpenVZ" spends half of the book covering OpenVZ Web Panel. It would be nice if OWP was adopted in some way or replaced with something similar to offer an entry level web-based management system like VMware does with ESXi. If considered, I'd strongly recommend that there is a clear differentiation between the features in the entry-level web-panel and those commercially offered. I know a few companies are selling OpenVZ compatible web-interfaces... like SolusVM, Proxmox VE, etc. | There is no final decision about WebUI in Vz7. But we will have libvirt in base of Vz7. It allows to use oVirt and virt-manager at least. |
| 4 | ZFS support | * native ZFS support for container files instead of ploop * ZFS integration (ZFS-aware tools for creation/cloning containers/creating snapshots) * ZFS integration (e.g. quota support) | There is no final decision regarding ZFS in VZ7. |
| 4 | Upstream kernel support and availability in Linux distributives | Better integration with LXC in the mainline kernel. I think LXC and Docker could be a stepping stone to OpenVZ / Virtuozzo... if the OpenVZ tools worked reasonably well with LXC in the mainline kernel... and it was clear to the user what features they could gain if they moved up to OpenVZ and/or Virtuozzo. | There is no final decision about it. |
| 2 | Better integration with OpenStack (especially networking) | In progress | |
| 2 | Support of Debian 8.0 Jessie | There is no final decision yet. |
What 3rd party technologies/products do you use with OpenVZ?
Note: Answers with more than 1 voice.
| Votes | Product |
| 9 | Proxmox with KVM and OpenVZ |
| 4 | KVM |
| 3 | Docker |
| 3 | Pacemaker (HA management) |
| 2 | Ansible |
| 2 | cPanel |
| 2 | SolusVM |
| 2 | ZFSonLinux |
| 2 | Zabbix |
| 2 | Asterisk |
Do you have plans to buy a commercial version of Virtuozzo (Parallels Server Bare Metal/Parallels Cloud Server)?
What are the reasons preventing to buy a commercial version?
Note: Answers with more than 1 voice.
Satisfied by OpenVZ or other opensource solutions (19 asnwers)
- I wasn't actually aware there was a commercial version so I don't know what the difference is. The free version has been working well for us though.
- We use it in small internal IT primarily so no need in Virtuozzo services - all things we can do by using standart OVZ tools.
- We are happy with the open source version.
- OpenVZ is very simple and good work for me.
- Not needed, anything works fine without any problem.
- OpenVZ does all I need
- OpenVZ is good enough for us
- Not needed at the time.
- Can't see why we need it.
- We have all needed features in openvz.
- enough openvz
- no reasons to buy, lot's of free solutions.
- Why?
- We have one and we don't feel that we need to buy another.
- What is the reason to buy?
- I tried to use comersial version and stay on openvz free version.
- The available opensource products are sufficient
- Not needed
- Our current needs are satisfied with docker, openstack + kvm and openvz for certain deployments where docker is not enough and kvm is too much.
Very high price of commercial version (10 answers)
- Strange prices, strange sales, enterprise orientation
- Cost, scale.
- Huge cost.
- budget
- no project funding and no use case
- No money
- Limited budget
Do you ever contribute to OpenVZ project?
What commercial products do you use in parallel with OpenVZ (Containers for Windows, Virtuozzo, Plesk etc).
Is there anything that could motivate you to switch to a supported/commercial version (Virtuozzo)?
