> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Dave butlerdi <[email protected]> wrote: > > By far the easiest and cost effective is an Amazon AMI. For those of us > > working with federation it is easy to create multiple servers in a few > > seconds and to pay only a few Euros. > > This way there is never a problem wioth hardware incompatability, a machine > > image is a machine image and when comparing performance it is always Apples > > to Apples. > > > Bootable DVD image is also a nice one for the folks just wishing to see it > > run.
Dave, Direct AMI deployment would certainly also be a very convenient option - and indeed many VM providers such as TurnkeyLinux have the option to deploy their virtual appliances directly to Amazon EC2. The approach is basically similar, packing a complete appliance rather than just an application that integrates into an existing system, the only difference being deployment to an external cloud (Amazons) compared to a local cloud/virtualization system. Of course, making good appliances is a bit of an art, which is why I suggested that they team up with an experienced VM provider. Still, keep in mind that deployment to external third-party clouds like Amazon's is not always an option, e.g. if the company have already invested in virtualization infrastructure, or due to strict data policies. (I know Amazon offers encrypted storage, but many managers are still reluctant with this kind of data out-sourcing. I work at a university and the professors and deans certainly prefer to keep our research data within our local firewalls... :-) But again, building for Amazon or building for another virtualization/ cloud environment is somewhat the same approach. And regarding the DVD suggestion: TKL also offers appliances as ISOs - I don't know if they are "Live CD" images, but it seems that this would also be doable... On Sep 5, 2:50 pm, Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see any good reason why configuration should be difficult. [...snip...] > I certainly don't see any reason why distributing a mini linux > distribution with the server will make it any easier to configure. Joseph, I completely agree with you that a stand-alone installer-package should be an option. But this approach introduces a few inconveniences: 1) You need an existing server, either physical or virtual. For the physical case, yes, we can all find an old computer which is not used in production which can be used for a test setup, but that ultimately require more work than needed. The future is certainly to consolidate servers and run most systems in a virtual environment. (I think readwriteenterprise recently featured an article showing that the number of virtual servers has already exceeded the number of physical servers...). Of course users could just create a new virtual machine and install WiaB on this, but why not simply skip this step? (Which is actually the point of distributing appliances rather than applications). Also, we would still have the second issue: 2) Different server setup, both regarding hardware, OS and other installed applications. Debugging becomes considerably easier when deploying on homogeneous systems... /Rasmus. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
