Alternatives to Xen Orchestra logo

Alternatives to Xen Orchestra

XenServer, OpenStack, Vagrant, Ionicons, and Material-UI are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Xen Orchestra.
5
7
+ 1
0

What is Xen Orchestra and what are its top alternatives?

It provides a web based UI for the management of XenServer installations without requiring any agent or extra software on your hosts nor VMs.
Xen Orchestra is a tool in the UI Components category of a tech stack.
Xen Orchestra is an open source tool with 331 GitHub stars and 135 GitHub forks. Here’s a link to Xen Orchestra's open source repository on GitHub

Top Alternatives to Xen Orchestra

  • XenServer

    XenServer

    It is a leading virtualization management platform optimized for application, desktop and server virtualization infrastructures. It is used in the world's largest clouds and enterprises. ...

  • OpenStack

    OpenStack

    OpenStack is a cloud operating system that controls large pools of compute, storage, and networking resources throughout a datacenter, all managed through a dashboard that gives administrators control while empowering their users to provision resources through a web interface. ...

  • Vagrant

    Vagrant

    Vagrant provides the framework and configuration format to create and manage complete portable development environments. These development environments can live on your computer or in the cloud, and are portable between Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. ...

  • Ionicons

    Ionicons

    Premium designed icons for use in web, iOS, Android, and desktop apps. Support for SVG and web font. Completely open source and MIT licensed. ...

  • Material-UI

    Material-UI

    It is a comprehensive guide for visual, motion, and interaction design across platforms and devices. ...

  • Ant Design

    Ant Design

    An enterprise-class UI design language and React-based implementation. Graceful UI components out of the box, base on React Component. A npm + webpack + babel + dora + dva development framework. ...

  • boot2docker

    boot2docker

    boot2docker is a lightweight Linux distribution based on Tiny Core Linux made specifically to run Docker containers. It runs completely from RAM, weighs ~27MB and boots in ~5s (YMMV). ...

  • uWSGI

    uWSGI

    The uWSGI project aims at developing a full stack for building hosting services. ...

Xen Orchestra alternatives & related posts

XenServer logo

XenServer

36
31
0
An open source virtualization platform
36
31
+ 1
0
PROS OF XENSERVER
    No pros available
    CONS OF XENSERVER
      No cons available

      related XenServer posts

      OpenStack logo

      OpenStack

      554
      739
      98
      Open source software for building private and public clouds
      554
      739
      + 1
      98

      related OpenStack posts

      related Vagrant posts

      Tymoteusz Paul
      Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 21 upvotes · 3.8M views

      Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

      It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

      I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

      We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

      If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

      The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

      Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

      See more
      Tim Abbott
      Shared insights
      on
      VirtualBox
      Vagrant
      Zulip
      at

      We use VirtualBox primarily as a Vagrant provider for macOS for the Zulip development environment. It's totally reasonable software for providing a convenient virtual machine setup on macOS (and for debugging when things go wrong, which is mostly how we use it since the Vagrant provider for macOS just works).

      See more
      Ionicons logo

      Ionicons

      1.2K
      38
      3
      Beautifully crafted open source icons
      1.2K
      38
      + 1
      3
      CONS OF IONICONS
        No cons available

        related Ionicons posts

        related Material-UI posts

        Adebayo Akinlaja
        Engineering Manager at Andela · | 14 upvotes · 336.3K views

        I picked up an idea to develop and it was no brainer I had to go with React for the frontend. I was faced with challenges when it came to what component framework to use. I had worked extensively with Material-UI but I needed something different that would offer me wider range of well customized components (I became pretty slow at styling). I brought in Evergreen after several sampling and reads online but again, after several prototype development against Evergreen—since I was using TypeScript and I had to import custom Type, it felt exhaustive. After I validated Evergreen with the designs of the idea I was developing, I also noticed I might have to do a lot of styling. I later stumbled on Material Kit, the one specifically made for React . It was promising with beautifully crafted components, most of which fits into the designs pages I had on ground.

        A major problem of Material Kit for me is it isn't written in TypeScript and there isn't any plans to support its TypeScript version. I rolled up my sleeve and started converting their components to TypeScript and if you'll ask me, I am still on it.

        In summary, I used the Create React App with TypeScript support and I am spending some time converting Material Kit to TypeScript before I start developing against it. All of these components are going to be hosted on Bit.

        If you feel I am crazy or I have gotten something wrong, I'll be willing to listen to your opinion. Also, if you want to have a share of whatever TypeScript version of Material Kit I end up coming up with, let me know.

        See more

        related Ant Design posts

        Sarmad Chaudhary
        Founder & CEO at Ebiz Ltd. · | 7 upvotes · 99.1K views

        Hi there!

        I just want to have a simple poll/vote...

        If you guys need a UI/Component Library for React, Vue.js, or AngularJS, which type of library would you prefer between:

        1 ) A single maintained cross-framework library that is 100% compatible and can be integrated with any popular framework like Vue, React, Angular 2, Svelte, etc.

        2) A native framework-specific library developed to work only on target framework like ElementUI for Vue, Ant Design for React.

        Your advice would help a lot! Thanks in advance :)

        See more
        boot2docker logo

        boot2docker

        277
        200
        95
        Lightweight Linux for Docker
        277
        200
        + 1
        95

        related boot2docker posts

        uWSGI logo

        uWSGI

        173
        209
        7
        uWSGI application server container
        173
        209
        + 1
        7
        PROS OF UWSGI
        CONS OF UWSGI
          No cons available

          related uWSGI posts

          I find I really like using GitHub because its issue tracker integrates really well into my project flow and the projects feature allows me to organize different efforts into boards. The automation features allow my issues to automatically progress through some states on the boards when I merge pull requests.

          My Python / Django app is deployed on Heroku with PostgreSQL database and uWSGI webserver.

          See more

          I use Gunicorn because does one thing - it’s a WSGI HTTP server - and it does it well. Deploy it quickly and easily, and let the rest of your stack do what the rest of your stack does well, wherever that may be.

          uWSGI “aims at developing a full stack for building hosting services” - if that’s a thing you need then ok, but I like the principle of doing one thing well, and I deploy to platforms like Heroku and AWS Elastic Beanstalk where the rest of the “hosting service” is provided and managed for me.

          See more