Doug Hughes wrote: > I can't help feel that we're missing the elephant in the room for this > topic. Windows. > Suppose you have 50 (100? more?) windows servers, some serving up > multiple variations of a database, or multiple variations of an embedded > gadget that hosts its own web server, or multiple versions of some other > thing that runs on the same port. Putting these into Virtualization > saves a lot of power for these sorts of companies as it reduces <n> > servers to 1 for a platform that doesn't have a history of jails, or > chroot, or things like that. > > From the Linux side, it can also be easier to audit a server that hosts > one or two dedicated things on an OS vs. a server containing a grab bag > of things needing conflicting version of this library or that library, > or some dependency that is conflicting, or whatever. >
And let's not forget rebooting. On big iron servers where you hosted a bunch of services, scheduling outages could be quite the headache. If you run a tiny service on a tiny virtual slice, you can reboot whenever its users give you the goahead, be it to change a kernel parameter, or to upgrade a major library, or even because you need to migrate it to a different platform/version asap. > Virtualization has its place. It's neither panacea nor useless. Yes. -- Yves. http://www.sollers.ca/ _______________________________________________ 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/
