SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs • Hacker News Board

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#151

Post by SEJeff » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #142

SEJeff wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redhat is bigger on both. Scientific Linux, which was built exclusively for HPC, was based on CentOS.

Luckily it's not winner takes all, nor is it "second place is the first loser". SUSE may be overlooked from a US perspective, which is why they get much less coverage than they deserve on sites like HN. They are huge in Europe and employ some exceptionally good people, and have been making probably the most solid distro out there since ~1994.

Oh I totally agree with you. Suse Linux 6.0 was my very first linux distribution around 1998 or 1999. I've professionally managed SLES, SLED, and even migrated a netware server to open enterprise server. It is great stuff and I'm glad to see it still alive.

The market is big enough for multiple large Linux distributions (Redhat, SUSE, and Debian^WUbuntu*). The market continues to grow as more things transition to computers.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#152

Post by takeda » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #70

maratc wrote: post #6

The real news for me here is that SUSE still exists.

Aren't they 2nd place after Red Hat? I'm talking about distributions that are made for enterprises. I heard for example that Intel was/is a huge user and used it on their computing farm.

I talked with someone from a North American company which runs their product on SuSE. And asked why SuSE was chosen instead of more popular Red Hat. Apparently Red Hat wasn't providing the premier level of support the company needed so they went with SuSE.

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#153

Post by jb_gericke » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:26 AM UTC

zumachase wrote: post #141

jb_gericke wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! Is that a single K8 control plane across one cluster? We've gone with fully isolated clusters across 2 data centers to protect against a network isolation incident between them causing a split brain/borking etcd.

Yes the control plane is only in one of the data centers. The other only runs admin services like offsite backups, our development infra (gitlab, etc) and CI/CD. We could definitely do two clusters and probably should, but the secondary data center has few services that it wasn’t really worth the extra work.

Oh cool, interesting. Thanks for the overview

Re: SUSE to Acquire Rancher Labs

#154

Post by manigandham » Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

zumachase wrote: post #37

bratao wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more good experience. I created an cluster of dedicated servers ( 64 cores, 6TB of SSD storage and 256 GB of RAM, 1 GPU) using Rancher, for about 250 Euros/Month. This would cost at least 2k in a cloud such as AWS. There is a post about how I did with persistent storage here ( https://medium.com/@bratao/state-of-persistent-storage-in-k8... ) It really transformed my company DevOps. I´m VERY happy. If you can, use…

We're in the same camp with a cluster ~2x as large for Squawk[1] and it would cost us many multiples in the cloud (excluding our TURN relays which aren't k8s). However, the one killer feature that the cloud still has over self hosted is the state layer. There is nothing that comes close to the turn key, highly available, point in time recoverable database offerings from the cloud providers. We're running Spilo/Patron…

You can also try databases that are natively distributed with replication and scaling built-in. If you need SQL you have many "newSQL" choices like CockroachDB, Yugabyte, Vitess, TiDB, and others.