Couldn't the community contribute these easily enough, for people who want them?
On Sep 5, 11:57 pm, Rasmus Scholer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
