Thanks for your post Kirk. The guy I spoke to seemed to have it the other way around - the VM’s had 4-12 cores and the “metal” about 32.
He also was of the categorical opinion that the only way to really keep applications “isolated” from each other (i.e. not bring everything else down when they crashed) was to give each mission critical application or service its own VM. When I put to him “what about the natural O/S level multi-threading” he felt there were too many vulnerabilities and mentioned especially the “crypto viruses” and the Intel multi-threading bug. His approach was basically - if your VM needs ore resources then we can simply allocated more. He wasn’t really bothered by the idea of applications that were multi-threaded internally because it’s all the one big bucket and if something inside the bucket needs more power then just make the bucket bigger. Peter > On 10 Oct 2019, at 16:09, Kirk Brooks via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > The other thing about VM vs metal is the whole pre-emptive process > benefit basically goes away. Thomas Maul has shown this at the Summit. > Having n+ virtual cores doesn't do anything to actually increase processing > speed because the VM is running on whatever is allocated to it. > Theoretically you could have a VM with 4 cores running an instance with 32 > cores ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
