On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alan Altmark wrote: > On Tuesday, 07/29/2003 at 08:55 MST, Jim Sibley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > So my question is: What moves are afoot to reduce the > > number of required images by consolidating their > > functions and remove the TCP/IP communications between > > applications? > > > > Isn't this the next logical step? > > You make two points: > 1. Fewer, larger servers > 2. Mixed-function servers > > I think you'll get the first before you get the 2nd. As long as "everyone > knows" (say it often enough and it will be true) that you can't mix > workloads on a single Linux instance, we'll have this problem. BTW, it
That will probably come from the low-end servers such as I run here. It does file sharing, mail, web serving, even firewall. As configurations like mine prove able to handle larger workloads, they will get them. there is so much capacity to spare here, there's no point in separating out the workloads. > won't eliminate TCP/IP comms; it just changes the latency and CPU > consumption characteristics. Avoiding TCP/IP altogether would require > application changes that would be specific to VM. Don't hold your breath > on that. I don't see that there would be a lot to gain: if you're going to run ;large numbers of Linux instances on a zBox, and they have to talk to each other, you need a network of some kind. As I see it, your alternatives are point-to-point like PPP or CTC, or multipoint like a TCP/IP network or channels with lots of devices. TCP/IP is in place and works: unless there are significant savings, even if someone writes the code, not may will implement it. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
