On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Luke S Crawford spake thusly: > live migration (and failover) both require shared storage. (failover > requires doubling your other compute resources as well) which usually
Not necessarily. I have failover and zero SPOF with a cluster of 5 machines doing virtualization with a hot spare worth of extra capacity. The more machines you run in the cluster the lower your overall percentage of unused capacity (economies of scale apply). > what they had. I also think their decision to go with local > disk (thus you can't use live migration) was probably > a good one, considering the choices.) Amazon's model is all about "if a machine catches fire, we throw it away, you deal with the redundancy in your application". > That's the other problem, owning is *much* cheaper than renting. > When I say this, most people point at the 'sysadmin time' thing, > which is expensive, but the only part of sysadmin time that > 'the cloud' covers is hardware installation and replacement, Yep. I have heard people talk about wanting to get out of the hardware owning business and move to managed hardware or cloud but they still end up paying at least as much except now they have opportunities for fingerpointing delaying resolution as well (see bitbucket's recent Amazon outage). -- Tracy Reed http://tracyreed.org
pgpHynMHXv3Ab.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
