On 5/30/06, Ambrosio Berdijo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. ESX 2.5 more stable than MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 when running over 50% CPU Utilization for multiple VMs and close to using up all the physical memory.
I can imagine ESX would be better - MS Virtual Server has the overhead and instability of Windows to contend with. The reason I wanted to try it out to host my desktop vm is I figured it would have tighter integration with Windows.
3. Running 64bit Guests over 64bit Host require special hardware CPU support (Stepping-F on AMD and VTx on Intel--look for the Intel D 9xx models)
Pacifica and Vanderpool...
4. I/O is the number one problem for VMs: if you have a high I/O applications such as file or database server, VMs will give much lower performance compared to dedicated servers.
I guess it's better to run the db engine on the physical server, then access it over the virtual network? _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
