Austrian cloud provider Anexia has migrated 12,000 virtual machines from VMware to its own internally developed KVM-based platform, saving millions of euros annually in licensing costs. Driven by the desire for greater control, flexibility, and cost savings, Anexia spent three years developing its own orchestration, storage, and networking solutions to underpin the new platform. While acknowledging the complexity and effort involved, the company claims the migration has resulted in improved performance and stability, along with the substantial financial benefits.
Austrian cloud provider Anexia, in a significant undertaking spanning two years, has migrated 12,000 virtual machines (VMs) from VMware vSphere, a widely-used commercial virtualization platform, to its own internally developed platform based on Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM), an open-source virtualization technology integrated within the Linux kernel. This migration, affecting a substantial portion of Anexia's infrastructure, represents a strategic move away from proprietary software and towards a more open and potentially cost-effective solution.
The driving forces behind this transition were primarily financial. Anexia's CEO, Alexander Windbichler, cited escalating licensing costs associated with VMware as the primary motivator. Maintaining and upgrading VMware's software suite had become a substantial financial burden, impacting Anexia's operational expenses. By switching to KVM, Anexia anticipates significant savings in licensing fees, offering them more control over their budget and potentially allowing for more competitive pricing for their cloud services.
The migration process itself was a complex and phased operation. Anexia developed its own custom tooling and automation scripts to facilitate the transfer of the 12,000 VMs, which involved not just the VMs themselves but also the associated data and configurations. This custom approach was necessary due to the lack of existing tools capable of handling such a large-scale migration between these two specific platforms. The entire endeavor was planned meticulously, executed incrementally, and closely monitored to minimize disruption to Anexia's existing clientele.
While Anexia acknowledges that there were initial challenges in replicating specific features of the VMware ecosystem, they emphasize that their KVM-based platform now offers comparable functionality and performance. Furthermore, they highlight the increased flexibility and control afforded by using open-source technology, enabling them to tailor the platform precisely to their specific requirements and integrate it more seamlessly with their other systems. This increased control also extends to security aspects, as Anexia now has complete visibility and control over the entire virtualization stack. The company considers the successful completion of this migration a significant achievement, demonstrating their technical expertise and commitment to providing a robust and cost-effective cloud infrastructure.
Summary of Comments ( 21 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42682671
Hacker News commenters generally praised Anexia's move away from VMware, citing cost savings and increased flexibility as primary motivators. Some expressed skepticism about the "homebrew" aspect of the new KVM platform, questioning its long-term maintainability and the potential for unforeseen issues. Others pointed out the complexities and potential downsides of such a large migration, including the risk of downtime and the significant engineering effort required. A few commenters shared their own experiences with similar migrations, offering both warnings and encouragement. The discussion also touched on the broader trend of moving away from proprietary virtualization solutions towards open-source alternatives like KVM. Several users questioned the wisdom of relying on a single vendor for such a critical part of their infrastructure, regardless of whether it's VMware or a custom solution.
The Hacker News comments section for the article "Euro-cloud provider Anexia moves 12,000 VMs off VMware to homebrew KVM platform" contains a variety of perspectives on the motivations and implications of Anexia's migration.
Several commenters focus on the cost savings as the primary driver. They point out that VMware's licensing fees can be substantial, and moving to an open-source solution like KVM can significantly reduce these expenses. Some express skepticism about the claimed 70% cost reduction, suggesting that the figure might not account for all associated costs like increased engineering effort. However, others argue that even with these additional costs, the long-term savings are likely substantial.
Another key discussion revolves around the complexity and risks of such a large-scale migration. Commenters acknowledge the significant technical undertaking involved in moving 12,000 VMs, and some question whether Anexia's "homebrew" approach is wise, suggesting potential issues with maintainability and support compared to using an established KVM distribution. Concerns are raised about the potential for downtime and data loss during the migration process. Conversely, others praise Anexia for their ambition and technical expertise, viewing the move as a bold and innovative decision.
A few comments highlight the potential benefits beyond cost savings. Some suggest that migrating to KVM gives Anexia more control and flexibility over their infrastructure, allowing them to tailor it to their specific needs and avoid vendor lock-in. This increased control is seen as particularly valuable for a cloud provider.
The topic of feature parity also emerges. Commenters discuss the potential challenges of replicating all of VMware's features on a KVM platform, especially advanced features used in enterprise environments. However, some argue that KVM has matured significantly and offers comparable functionality for many use cases.
Finally, some commenters express interest in the technical details of Anexia's migration process, asking about the specific tools and strategies used. They also inquire about the performance and stability of Anexia's KVM platform after the migration. While the original article doesn't provide these specifics, the discussion reflects a desire for more information about the practical aspects of such a complex undertaking. The lack of technical details provided by Anexia is also noted, with some speculation about why they chose not to disclose more.