In some of the 'old time' virtualization (think IBM VM in 1980's or so), it was done because people were cheaper than machines.
We went to lots of 'single use machines' because machines were cheaper than people. (Typically in the 1-way and 2-way Intel-ish market with M$oftware). Now we are finding as the cost/benefits change, so does our balance between virtualization, appliances vs applications, administration costs, and 'costs of going green' (saving power mainly, but also hardware maintenance), using 'server' vs 'commodity' hardware, versus the savings each of them bring. This is a non-linear set of equations, and not a simple answer. Also no one answer is right for everyone. One solution I haven't seen talked about in years is 'hardware based virtualization'. Basically partitioning hardware with 'firmware based microkernel' to allow multiple 'independant' systems run on one set of physical hardware. IBM did that 'BackWhen' by putting IBMs VM on big iron, and 'virtually partitioning' the machine. They tried to keep us system grunts from seeing the 'hardware console' inside the service panels, but once we saw it, it was just running a cut down VM operating system on the raw hardware, and everything else was virtualized. ... Not much different in concept than having a big intelish boxen and running VMWare enterprise on it and calling the hardware and the 'next to the metal' vmware all 'hardware'. ... Just folks not selling it as one unit and trying to keep you believing it is all 'magic behined the sheet metal'. ><> ... Jack
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
