On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:58:44PM +0100, Phillip Bennett wrote: > 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.
Xen is relatively stable and will do what you need. The overheads are small, but it would also add overheads to your fileserver, not just to the backup virtual machine. K _______________________________________________ Scottish mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
