On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:32 PM, Vic Cross wrote:
> Heh, maybe I was the only one that responded... :)
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Adam Thornton wrote:
> There were at least two of us.
Make that three.
Well ... I don't remember responding about OS/2,
but I *did* use the beta which could support it.
I think
Doug Fairobent wrote:
I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to launch a
server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel
programmers (who vastly outnumber me) are touting VMware as the server
consolidation solution. Does anyone know of an analysis or study
on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> James Melin
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
>
>
> That would be interesting. Then your server farm becomes an aggregate
> resource pool, and you could move load arou
>VMware does have limitations though, which is why it may not
>be suitable on the high end. Maximum processor support is
>just for duallies for example. There's also a [maximum] memory
>limit as well that's pretty low (2G?).
Yes but these numbers are per guest. So each of my four (4) W2K serve
Alan Cox wrote:
>Moving VM's around opens an entire world you can't do other ways. The
>Xen folks examples include moving web sites or game servers to be in a
>good place with low latency to the current players. When your machine
>room catches fire or hits UPS you can move services elsewhere. All
>
On Llu, 2004-12-13 at 02:46, Knutson, Sam wrote:
> Isn't it more likely IBM could continue to relieve the few situations that
> require POR than to develop the VM guest teleportation facility?
>
> Adding or removing storage, processor, or memory resources should not
Moving VM's around opens an ent
Isn't it more likely IBM could continue to relieve the few situations that
require POR than to develop the VM guest teleportation facility?
Adding or removing storage, processor, or memory resources should not
require a POR and should be supported by the hypervisor (LPAR and z/VM) and
the hardware
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:32 PM, Vic Cross wrote:
[1] VMware did a pilot of a version for Linux and Windows (before GSX
and ESX
existed) that was enabled to run OS/2 as a guest, and it worked great
-- but
they pulled the pin due to "lack of demand". Did they really have to
do that
much work to the co
On Sad, 2004-12-11 at 05:32, Vic Cross wrote:
> If the workload is Linux, then you'd have to be very wary about MsVS
> (IMNSHO). What might work today would definitely be unsupported by Ms, and
> may become disfunctional in the future if (when?) Microsoft decides to make
> MsVS a Windows-only virt
Others have talked about the z/VM v. VMware question, but when Virtual Server
came up it made me think about how it sits against VMware. As such it's
flagged OT, so read on at your peril. :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:17:04AM -0700, Ledbetter, Scott E wrote:
> They have been elusive about suppor
Richard Troth
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
Hi, Doug, ...
Wow! You've gotten some great responses already.
Clearly, you need to think about your workload before anything else.
You don't want to say "z/VM is better" an
First, the swap size of two times real is an old less
educated wag at requirements. You are probably not
swapping at all. And the swap should be vdisk in case
you ever do swap (or dcss when your linux vendor supports
it). If you never swap, then your storage size is enough, maybe
too large. The ri
Subject
IST.EDU> Re: VMware vs. VM
12/10/2004 02:32
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
Why do you migrate back to the physical server that neede
Lee Stewart wrote:
You'd probably migrate back to the old (now updated) server to balance
your
workload capacity. Of course if you had the capacity on the other
server(s), there'd be no "need", at least right away.
Lee
Have you folks looked into UserMode Linux?
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.n
No I think what he's talking about is the ability to suspend a VMWare image
and move it over to another box and resume it. Perry Ruiter and I had talked
a bit about this, but it's hard.
Ages ago, the VM SSI add-on could do this with some restrictions.
-- db
-
On Dec 10, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Lee Stewart wrote:
No noticeable interruption... It doesn't suspend (like the old
SAVEVM/RESTVM), it migrates the live, in storage memory to the new box
while the server continues to run on the old box. It keeps track of
what
pages have been changed as the server runs
CTED]
Sent by: Linux on cc
390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
IST.EDU> Re: VMware vs. VM
12/10/2004 02:32
PM
on and why you move the server
back.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lee
Stewart
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
How long a V-Motion migration takes depends on how big the virtual server
is (all t
No noticeable interruption... It doesn't suspend (like the old
SAVEVM/RESTVM), it migrates the live, in storage memory to the new box
while the server continues to run on the old box. It keeps track of what
pages have been changed as the server runs on the old box and gradually
trims that set of
m curious about physical server configuration and why you move the server
back.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lee
Stewart
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
How long a V-Motion migration takes
> As I recall you had to either run VM ware under linux on intel or under
> windows XP. Which way did you go? I've heard it works much better for some
> things with linux as the base hosting OS.
Keep in mind there are 3 grades of VMWare:
1) Workstation (requires hosting OS of Windows or Linux)
2)
What kind of old hardware are you running that requires you to shutdown
just to add processors?
However, if you have old hardware, or just need to switch workloads to
a different, physical box without interruption, there is...
1. Parellel sysplex (mostly for z/OS workloads).
2. Linux has a fai
On Gwe, 2004-12-10 at 19:53, Adam Thornton wrote:
> Won't there be some interruption time between the suspend-to-disk on
> the first set of servers, and the resume-from-disk on the second set?
> That is, the servers don't know they were down, but connected guests
> will see a pause there, won't the
On Gwe, 2004-12-10 at 18:16, Adam Thornton wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Steve Shomaker wrote:
>
> > VMware ESX Server runs on bare metal.
> >
> Well, sorta.
>
> I think it runs on its own embedded Linux distro.
It boots what seems to be an old Red Hat derivative and that then loads
up th
nt: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
For example: Over the weekend you're going to update your machine and turn
on another IFL -- that requires the entire box VM, LPARs, servers to be
shutdown for a POR/IML...
Now a VMware Virtual Center (with V-
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:53:16 -0600, Adam Thornton wrote:
>On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Lee Stewart wrote:
>> I can migrate the running Windows or Linux servers off
>> the box I need to update, onto various other boxes while the update is
>> being done, then back to the updated server -- all witho
/2004, you wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lee Stewart
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
>
>
>
> Now a VMware Virtual Center (with V-Mot
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Lee Stewart wrote:
I can migrate the running Windows or Linux servers off
the box I need to update, onto various other boxes while the update is
being done, then back to the updated server -- all without ever taking
the
servers down.
Won't there be some interruption ti
Troth
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
Hi, Doug, ...
Wow! You've gotten some great responses already.
Clearly, you need to think about your workload before anything else.
You don't want to say "z/VM is better" and then th
For example: Over the weekend you're going to update your machine and turn
on another IFL -- that requires the entire box VM, LPARs, servers to be
shutdown for a POR/IML...
Now a VMware Virtual Center (with V-Motion) example: I have to update my
4-way xSeries 445 to an 8-way, which requires the s
We run the ESX version of VMware on a 8-way x440. We have 4 w2k servers
each running Lotus Domino running under VMware. We have been very happy
with configuration.
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317
Office: 850.219.518
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lee Stewart
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
>
>
>
> Now a VMware Virtual Center (with V-Motion) exampl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: VMware vs. VM
12/10
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:56:34AM -0800, Steve Shomaker wrote:
> VMware ESX Server runs on bare metal.
Actually it includes various parts of the Linux Kernel, thus violating
the Copyrights of us Linux Kernel Copyright holders.
-
> VMware can do things that VM can't... Imagine
taking a > running active server and dynamically
moving it to > another physical processor --
never missing a beat.
>
What type of scenerio would this be useful on zSeries
hardware? I thought IBM indicates it to have a mean
up time of 99.999%.
s.)
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Mark D Pace
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
We run the ESX version of VMware on a 8-way x440. We have 4 w2k servers
each running Lotus Domin
Mark, what are they using to run Lotus Domino? Linux?
Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12/10/2004 02:00 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
SUSE SLES8, SP3.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Steve Gentry
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
Mark, what are they using to run Lotus Domino? Linux
Actually, in the mainframe side, the mean time between failure (per an
IBM Road show yesterday), is about 60 years.
A processor fault, is handled by the hardware and you should never see
it. So, VM doesn't handle it as it would never see it.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12
8 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
> VMware can do things that VM can't... Imagine
taking a > running active server and dynamically
moving it to > another physical processor --
never missing a beat.
>
What type of scenerio would this be useful on
Load balancing?
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George
Wallace
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
> VMware can do things that VM can't... Imagine
taking a > running ac
Hi, Doug, ...
Wow! You've gotten some great responses already.
Clearly, you need to think about your workload before anything else.
You don't want to say "z/VM is better" and then throw a virus-scanning
e-mail service on it and watch the thing tank because of CPU load.
* the INTeL (a
On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Ledbetter, Scott E wrote:
In any virtualization environment, Microsoft has made it clear that
you owe
them a license fee for each copy of their software you are running.
They
have also made it clear that they are serious about stealing VMWare's
market
with their new Vi
And VMware ESX -- the robust production server host -- only takes about
3-5% overhead, not the higher numbers quoted earlier.
There are "hosted" versions of VMware (Workstation and GSX) which run under
Windows or Linux and do have higher overhead, but they're not for a
production server consolidati
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:56:34AM -0800, Steve Shomaker wrote:
> VMware ESX Server runs on bare metal.
Actually it includes various parts of the Linux Kernel, thus violating
the Copyrights of us Linux Kernel Copyright holders.
http://www.marist.edu/h
It boots using a modified version of Linux (Red Hat, I think). Then once
it's initialized, it hands control over to it's own kernel.
Lee
At 11:16 AM 12/10/2004, you wrote:
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Steve Shomaker wrote:
VMware ESX Server runs on bare metal.
Well, sorta.
I think it runs on its
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: VMware vs. VM
12/10/2004 08:51
AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
Hi, Cam
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Steve Shomaker wrote:
VMware ESX Server runs on bare metal.
Well, sorta.
I think it runs on its own embedded Linux distro.
Adam
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
cost study to get the correct answer for
your environment.
Scott Ledbetter
StorageTek
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Seader, Cameron
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
We have Merc
You seem to be comparing Windows on Vmware with Linux on the 390 rather
than Linux on both ?
VMware certainly has some limits because unlike the 390 it is trying to
emulate commodity hardware not designed for virtualisation on commodity
hardware. That means they have to do some truely remarkable t
We were testing OpenMail, not Lotus.
- Forwarded by Tom H. Shilson/US-Corporate/3M/US on 12/10/2004 10:39 AM
-
Tom H. Shilson/US-Corporate/3M/US wrote on 12/10/2004 10:27:59 AM:
> We are also agonizing over consolidation/virtualization. VMware is
> expensive $$$. If you are going to c
We are also agonizing over consolidation/virtualization. VMware is
expensive $$$. If you are going to consolidate Windows systems you still
need a license for each copy of Windows. Our Windows folks seem to favor
the upcoming Windows Virtual Server. When that comes out it may drive down
the price
On Dec 10, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Doug Fairobent wrote:
I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to
launch a
server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel
programmers (who vastly outnumber me) are touting VMware as the server
consolidation solution. Does anyone
Subject
Re: VMware vs. VM
12/10/2004 08:51
AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
Hi, Cameron.
Do you think your employer would be willing to share such "
nux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: VMware vs. VM
12/1
I will look into the sharing of the benchmarks.
-Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Dave Jones
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 07:51
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMware vs. VM
Hi, Cameron.
Do you think your employer would be
Are you trying to consolidate Windows systems or LinTel systems? Are you
currently running VM at all?
tom
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Toto, I have a feeling we're not in the mainframe world any more.
_/) Tom Shilson
~GEDW & VM System Services
Aloha Te
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Doug Fairobent
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 07:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VMware vs. VM
I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to launch a
server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel
programmers (who vast
PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Doug Fairobent
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 07:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VMware vs. VM
I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to launch a
server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel
programmers (who vastly outnumber me
I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to launch a
server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel
programmers (who vastly outnumber me) are touting VMware as the server
consolidation solution. Does anyone know of an analysis or study that
compares the mer
60 matches
Mail list logo
