----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SLUG-list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: [Scottish] Virtual machines
Hi everyone,
I will be buying a new server in the next couple of months and would like
to put a VM on it to get rid of one of our other servers. The new server
will be our main file server. It will be running ldap, samba and DNS, but
mainly just serving files. It will also be a domain master for our
network. I'm looking to get two quad core xeons and 8GB RAM.
What I'm thinking of is running our backup server in a VM instead of an
actual machine. It only ever does any work after hours, when the other
machines are idle, so I figure they shouldn't interfere with each other.
Does this sounds like a viable idea to everyone? Or should I not bother.
I'm worried about the performance hit the machine could take during the
day, but as I'm not a VM expert, I figure there shouldn't be too much, as
the VM would be doing very little (if anything).
If this sounds viable, which VM would people recommend? I'm thinking of
either Xen, VMware or KVM. KVM would be harder, as I'll be running RHEL 4
or 5 on it.
All comments appreciated.
Thanks,
Phil.
I just re-read that and realised I should probably clarify the 'backup
server'. Basically it's just a small RHEL3 box running Netbackup. It has
an LTO drive attached via SCSI and will soon have an ATAoE array for
backups. It does nothing but run backups once a night.
hth,
Phil.
_______________________________________________
Scottish mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
