Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Robby Russell wrote: > >> Raul wrote: >>> Hi again. All the great assistance so far has moved me along. I'm >>> still a Linux noob but I've settled on CentOS 4.4 and have it up and >>> running on a test server right now. I'll be testing two >>> scenarios: one >>> with Apache 2.2 and mod_proxy_balancer in front of a mongrel cluster, >>> and another with NGINX in front of a mongrel cluster. >>> >>> Remeber I have 3 machines with dual, dual-core Xeons and 16gb of >>> ram per >>> server and I want to maximize the performance, 146gb of storage on >>> two >>> and a 73gb mirror with a 600gb raid 5 on the last one (I had >>> intended to >>> use the raid5 for the mySQL database). So I've looked into >>> virtualization a bit to see what the benefits might be and it sounds >>> great. Now I noticed that XenExpress only supports up to 4gb of >>> ram and >>> I understand there may be a mySQL 4gb per process limit as well. I >>> could buy commercial Xen but I found OpenVZ (open source branch of >>> Virtuozzo) and it sounds pretty good too. I understand that each >>> solution accomplishes virtualization in different ways though so any >>> guidance would be appreciated. >> We've been testing both of these solutions out. Xen is pretty >> rocking if >> you want to manage several different distros and such. Each virtual >> server has it's own kernel running with Xen... which will take more >> resources on the server than OpenVZ. There is also the overhead of >> managing that many more servers/kernels. >> >> OpenVZ shares it's kernel with each of the virtual machines and works >> more like a FreeBSD jail. One of the cool features that really caught >> our attention as we've been investigating tools for our new product is >> live migrations! >> >> "Delivery of the checkpointing and live migration functionality as >> part >> of OpenVZ brings a capability that no other open source operating >> system-level virtualization software offers. It allows system >> administrators to move virtual servers between physical servers >> without >> end-user disruption or the need for costly storage capacity." >> >> http://openvz.org/news/announcements/kernel-2.6.9-stable-20061114 > > Ummm... Xen can do this too. >
"the more you know..." (tm) I'll look into that more. > >> ..pretty cool, huh? > > definitely cool, to be able to move a whole VM from one host to > another without any down time is kick ass ;) > Yeah, I'm also curious if OpenVZ will get accepted into the Linux kernel as mentioned here: * http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/17/2251233 * and... http://rubyurl.com/2na Since they both approach things _slighty_ different, it's a good idea to consider the benefits of both before making a decision. I really _want_ to go the openvz route with a project we're working on, but xen keeps coming back to surprise me. Robby -- Robby Russell http://www.robbyonrails.com/ http://www.planetargon.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-deployment@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
