Wondering if there is any plans of adding support for managing SUSE Harvester clusters with OpenNebula?
Hello @sdfa354adfa342,
For the moment, we manage Kubernetes through the virtualization (KVM, or Firecracker), so there are no plans to include support for an HCI solution.
If you have specific use cases or requirements for integrating an HCI solution, feel free to share them! So we can evaluate if there’s an opportunity to add support on the platform.
Cheers,
SUSE calls it “HCI” but the KVM part and storage part (Longhorn) are two separate products that are managed separately. More of a situation of being packaged together so you get kubevirt + storage + k8s CSI to integrate the two, from one vendor in a tested/supported package together.
Our use case is we are heavily using it for k8s hosting with thousands of VM’s for k8s cluster nodes and have really grown to like kubevirt for running VM’s. Problem statement is that while kubevirt is capable and Harvester is a solid kubevirt based platform, the method to manage the VM/KVM portion of Harvester is through Rancher and Rancher is not targeted for general VM management. Using Rancher for k8s nodes is fine where the VM’s are created and destroyed dynamically as you never have to see/manage the VM’s, but Rancher is less good as a tool to mange a general purpose KVM hypervisor (like what OpenNebula does)
So our main desire would be for some product (OpenNebula being a favored one) to support managing kubevirt hypervisors, specifically the SUSE Harvester implementation of it. Storage we see as separate, and in the kubevirt/k8s world the storage is a k8s PV handled by whichever CSI you choose to install. Build a VM, pick a storage class, storage class maps to a CSI, VM is stored on whatever storage the CSI is for, and the CSI handles all of the storage details. To kubevirt, storage is just a k8s PV and not something that really needs managed beyond what you normally would do with a k8s PV.
Hello again,
Thanks for clarifying and explaining the type of use case you are looking. That helped a lot to understand the original question.
While we understand the strengths you are describing, and how Kubevirt and Harvester are a good fit for managing VMs as part of a Kubernetes cluster, at OpenNebula, we take a different approach, aiming to simplify the management of virtualized and containerized workloads while maintaining flexibility across various infrastructures.
Basically, at the moment is not in our plans use OpenNebula as a Kubevirt “backend”.
If you want to know more how OpenNebula handles VMs, I suggest you to check our documentation: Virtual Machine Management — OpenNebula 6.10.2 documentation
Cheers,