«

Frankly, I've been wondering why there's been so much fuss over this
virtualization issue. My clients have Linux servers quite happily
fulfilling multiple roles at once, without having to run multiple instances
of the operating system.

Now this item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=469> seems to explain
it: it's specifically virtualization of Windows that is the hot topic.
Windows servers don't generally handle multiple roles very well, so people
trying to use them as servers end up running multiple machines.
Virtualization is a way of addressing this limitation of Windows.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Frankly, I've been wondering why there's been so much fuss over this
> virtualization issue. My clients have Linux servers quite happily
> fulfilling multiple roles at once, without having to run multiple instances
> of the operating system.
>
> Now this item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=469> seems to explain
> it: it's specifically virtualization of Windows that is the hot topic.
> Windows servers don't generally handle multiple roles very well, so people
> trying to use them as servers end up running multiple machines.
> Virtualization is a way of addressing this limitation of Windows.

Clearly shows you have no real understanding of the concepts behind
virtualisation - if it's just for Windows why are there multiple open
source virtualisation platforms available exlcusively for virtualising
linux?

Most of the large scale VMWare (or similar) installations in NZ are
primarily virtualising Linux servers to better utilize x86 hardware,
increase availability etc.

At least get a basic handle on the facts before climbing on your soapbox.

In article <46d24a08$>, none <>
wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > Frankly, I've been wondering why there's been so much fuss over this
> > virtualization issue. My clients have Linux servers quite happily
> > fulfilling multiple roles at once, without having to run multiple instances
> > of the operating system.
> >
> > Now this item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=469> seems to explain
> > it: it's specifically virtualization of Windows that is the hot topic.
> > Windows servers don't generally handle multiple roles very well, so people
> > trying to use them as servers end up running multiple machines.
> > Virtualization is a way of addressing this limitation of Windows.
>
> Clearly shows you have no real understanding of the concepts behind
> virtualisation - if it's just for Windows why are there multiple open
> source virtualisation platforms available exlcusively for virtualising
> linux?
>
> Most of the large scale VMWare (or similar) installations in NZ are
> primarily virtualising Linux servers to better utilize x86 hardware,
> increase availability etc.
>
> At least get a basic handle on the facts before climbing on your soapbox.

yep, and when things go pear shaped its a damn good way of getting
services up and running again with minimal downtime.

whoisthis wrote:
> yep, and when things go pear shaped its a damn good way of getting
> services up and running again with minimal downtime.

If deployed properly, 99% of the time it can bring itself backup
automagically.

We're in the design phase at the moment and plan to virtualise most of
our datacentre by mid next year.

Our datacentre of 70+ servers, only ~5 of which are Windows.

none wrote:

> whoisthis wrote:
>> yep, and when things go pear shaped its a damn good way of getting
>> services up and running again with minimal downtime.
>
> If deployed properly, 99% of the time it can bring itself backup
> automagically.
>
> We're in the design phase at the moment and plan to virtualise most of
> our datacentre by mid next year.
>
> Our datacentre of 70+ servers, only ~5 of which are Windows.

This looks worthy of further investigation
http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/2...rtual_manager/
--
Q: What's big, grey, and proves the uncountability of the reals?
A: Cantor's diagonal elephant.

In message <46d24a08$>, none wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Frankly, I've been wondering why there's been so much fuss over this
>> virtualization issue. My clients have Linux servers quite happily
>> fulfilling multiple roles at once, without having to run multiple
>> instances of the operating system.
>>
>> Now this item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=469> seems to
>> explain it: it's specifically virtualization of Windows that is the hot
>> topic. Windows servers don't generally handle multiple roles very well,
>> so people trying to use them as servers end up running multiple machines.
>> Virtualization is a way of addressing this limitation of Windows.
>
> Clearly shows you have no real understanding of the concepts behind
> virtualisation - if it's just for Windows why are there multiple open
> source virtualisation platforms available exlcusively for virtualising
> linux?
>
> Most of the large scale VMWare (or similar) installations in NZ are
> primarily virtualising Linux servers to better utilize x86 hardware,
> increase availability etc.
>
> At least get a basic handle on the facts before climbing on your soapbox.

But VMWare isn't open-source.

Check out Xen - it is open source (I believe).

--

Alan.

The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
else associated with me.

My current valid email address is:



This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

If you are trying to contact me after that time,
it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
to contact me by email, try searching for a
more recent post by me to find my current
email address.

The following is a (probably!) totally unique
and meaningless string of characters that you
can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb




"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
message news:fau351$jbd$...
> In message <46d24a08$>, none wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Frankly, I've been wondering why there's been so much fuss over
>>> this
>>> virtualization issue. My clients have Linux servers quite happily
>>> fulfilling multiple roles at once, without having to run multiple
>>> instances of the operating system.
>>>
>>> Now this item <http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=469> seems to
>>> explain it: it's specifically virtualization of Windows that is
>>> the hot
>>> topic. Windows servers don't generally handle multiple roles very
>>> well,
>>> so people trying to use them as servers end up running multiple
>>> machines.
>>> Virtualization is a way of addressing this limitation of Windows.
>>
>> Clearly shows you have no real understanding of the concepts behind
>> virtualisation - if it's just for Windows why are there multiple
>> open
>> source virtualisation platforms available exlcusively for
>> virtualising
>> linux?
>>
>> Most of the large scale VMWare (or similar) installations in NZ are
>> primarily virtualising Linux servers to better utilize x86
>> hardware,
>> increase availability etc.
>>
>> At least get a basic handle on the facts before climbing on your
>> soapbox.
>
> But VMWare isn't open-source.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> But VMWare isn't open-source.

Errm... so?

In message <46d295ba$>, lolinternet wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> But VMWare isn't open-source.
>
> Errm... so?

So it's hardly a good example of the point the OP was trying to make, is it?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <46d295ba$>, lolinternet wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> But VMWare isn't open-source.
>> Errm... so?
>
> So it's hardly a good example of the point the OP was trying to make, is it?

Clearly the fact it's two separate paragraphs confuses you.

If virtualisation is only to solve windows problems, then why do XEN,
UML and the like exist?

The real drivers for virtualisation barely even touch on issues with
Windows... the fact you've found a blog article to the contrary isn't
really thread worthy.