Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Virtualization: Windows vs Linux

Reply
Thread Tools

Virtualization: Windows vs Linux

 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 16:58, Gordon wrote:
> On 2010-08-28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand>
> wrote: [snip]
>>
>> Linux servers, on the other hand, regularly fulfil multiple roles
>> without conflicts, because with Open Source software, you simply
>> cannot get away with the same coding sloppiness?you will get pulled
>> up on it.

>
> I see OSS, as a matter of honour. As in, this work is mine. There is
> a bug in it, thanks mate, it will be fixed soon.
>
> With *many* minds looking over ones code, every human viewpoint/angle
> will be expressed. Holes/bugs will be exposed and as the author you
> will be as keen as as candidate before an election to put matters
> right. For after all his code needs a slight improvement.
>
> Many slight improvements mean progress. Many people making slight
> improvements mean a hell of alot of improvement.
>

The source may be open but not one person in a million ever looks at it.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolň di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 16:59, Gordon wrote:
> On 2010-08-28, Enkidu<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 28/08/10 21:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> From
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/server_management_hypervisor_choice/>:
>>>
>>> Linux server consolidation does tend to lag a little behind Windows, but
>>> is following the same basic trend.
>>>
>>> Interpreting ?same basic trend? as ?analysts? wishful thinking?, I think
>>> this confirms what I?ve been saying, that virtualization is primarily a
>>> phenomenon applicable to Windows servers, not Linux ones.
>>>
>>> Windows servers need consolidation because they tend to proliferate, and
>>> they tend to proliferate because you dare not run more than one mission-
>>> critical app on the same Windows server: there?s too much risk of
>>> misbehaviour in which the vendor of each app points the finger at the other.
>>> Them?s the breaks with proprietary apps.
>>>
>>> Linux servers, on the other hand, regularly fulfil multiple roles without
>>> conflicts, because with Open Source software, you simply cannot get away
>>> with the same coding sloppiness?you will get pulled up on it. So Linux
>>> server hardware tends to be more efficiently utilized to begin with, meaning
>>> there is less scope for savings with virtualization.
>>>

>> There are so many things wrong with that 'opinion piece' that it is not
>> even funny. In my experience Linux consolidation is leading the way and
>> Windows consolidation only happens as it becomes possible to pry the
>> Windows server away from the Windows support staff. And the article
>> totally ignores a major vendor in its assessment.
>>
>> I can only suppose that the article is merely intended to draw a frenzy
>> of feedback. In other words, it's a troll.
>>

> So you have fed it
>

Yes, and Lennier lapped it up.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolň di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i5alol$2tu$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> From
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/server_management_hypervisor_choice/>:
>>
>> Linux server consolidation does tend to lag a little behind Windows,
>> but is following the same basic trend.
>>
>> Interpreting “same basic trend” as “analysts’ wishful thinking”, I think
>> this confirms what I’ve been saying, that virtualization is primarily a
>> phenomenon applicable to Windows servers, not Linux ones.

>
> Further confirmation
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/novell_q3_f2010_numbers/>:
>
> The vast majority of VMware vSphere customers are virtualizing Windows,
> not Linux, workloads.
>

Well, my experience is that we have heaps of Windows VMs that would not
have existed if we had needed physical machines. We also have many Linux
VMs that were once physical boxes. We have probably as many physical
Windows boxes, but many fewer Linux boxes.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 18:37, AD. wrote:
> On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message<i5alol$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> From
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/server_management_hypervisor_...>:

>>
>>> Linux server consolidation does tend to lag a little behind Windows,
>>> but is following the same basic trend.

>>
>>> Interpreting “same basic trend” as “analysts’ wishful thinking”, I think
>>> this confirms what I’ve been saying, that virtualization is primarily a
>>> phenomenon applicable to Windows servers, not Linux ones.

>>
>> Further confirmation
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/26/novell_q3_f2010_numbers/>:
>>
>> The vast majority of VMware vSphere customers are virtualizing Windows,
>> not Linux, workloads.

>
> And what about Xen or KVM customers?
>
> The very next sentence after that quote alludes to it:
>
> "Linux shops that are doing virtualization to consolidate servers and
> to offer other features tend to want an open source hypervisor. That
> means not VMware ESX Server."
>

Linux only shops might use KVM or Citrix, but Windows shops and
Windows/Linux shops will tend to use VMWare.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolň di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 21:10, AD. wrote:
> On Aug 29, 7:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, AD. wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The vast majority of VMware vSphere customers are virtualizing Windows,
>>>> not Linux, workloads.

>>
>>> And what about Xen or KVM customers?

>>
>>> The very next sentence after that quote alludes to it:

>>
>>> "Linux shops that are doing virtualization to consolidate servers and
>>> to offer other features tend to want an open source hypervisor. That
>>> means not VMware ESX Server."

>>
>> Which don’t seem to have as big a market. Proving the point that
>> virtualization is primarily a Windows, not a Linux thing. QED.

>
> But the open source Xen (ie not the Citrix Xenserver product) and KVM
> aren't being measured as part of "a market" in any way that The
> Register would pick up from their press release regurgitations. Xen
> and/or KVM come built in to practically all Linux distros and are also
> available to be downloaded and installed for free.
>
> They don't show up in the same sales figures that break down the
> shares of vSphere, Hyper-V or XenServer etc. A "Linux shop" using open
> source hypervisors can just use them without it really be recorded
> anywhere.
>
> Linux server consolidation is less visible to trade rags than Windows
> server consolidation. Your assumption that Linux hardly gets any
> server consolidation compared to Windows needs more evidence to make
> that link.
>

Xen/Citrix is not a hypervisor. It's just a patched OS.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolň di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On Aug 29, 11:01*pm, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Xen/Citrix is not a hypervisor. It's just a patched OS.


Really? That's the first time I've heard anyone say that, and I've
been using since about 2004 or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On Aug 29, 11:00*pm, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 29/08/10 18:37, AD. wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> >> * * *The vast majority of VMware vSphere customers are virtualizing Windows,
> >> * * *not Linux, workloads.

>
> > And what about Xen or KVM customers?

>
> > The very next sentence after that quote alludes to it:

>
> > "Linux shops that are doing virtualization to consolidate servers and
> > to offer other features tend to want an open source hypervisor. That
> > means not VMware ESX Server."

>
> Linux only shops might use KVM or Citrix, but Windows shops and
> Windows/Linux shops will tend to use VMWare.


I wouldn't argue with that, but it reinforces my point that overall
the Windows consolidation is more 'visible' overall. And that just
because the Register / Lawrence can't see as much Linux server
consolidation doesn't mean is isn't happening as well.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:53:19 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

> Basically, I
> don't believe you.


I don't expect you to believe a statement of facts!


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:53:19 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

> Virtualisation allows quick and easy relocation and addition of resource
> without end user impact and simple elegant load balancing.


You don't need load balancing if your application is not that demanding
on resources, and if you have a DR environment (which we do for most
applications) then in this context all your advantages of virtualization
are moot.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 29/08/10 23:43, AD. wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:01 pm, Enkidu<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Xen/Citrix is not a hypervisor. It's just a patched OS.

>
> Really? That's the first time I've heard anyone say that, and I've
> been using since about 2004 or so.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
>

In that article:

"Xen boots from a bootloader like GNU GRUB and then usually loads a
modified host operating system into the host domain (dom0)".

But it's a blurry line, I'd say. I think that I remember in the early
days adding the Xen patches to a standard kernal, but I could be wrong.
In 'the early days' we patched for a lot of things.

My point is, and I'm not sure if it holds, is that on Xen you could, if
you wished, run other stuff on the host OS, and I think of 'hypervisors'
as purpose built hosts that only run guests.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolň di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using Perl to connect a Linux box to Linux/Windows boxes Krishna Chaitanya Perl Misc 1 02-27-2009 11:44 AM
Re: Is Netscape Leaving Firefox Behind on GNU/Linux? THE LINUX PROPAGANDA MACHINE CONTINUES. FIREFOX IGNORING LINUX............. traci.manicotti@gmail.com Computer Support 2 10-20-2007 02:12 PM
Linux... yeah linux.. Linux Have a nice cup of pee NZ Computing 19 04-17-2006 10:16 AM
Win4Lin Delivers Windows 2000 and Windows XP on Linux Ray Greene NZ Computing 6 02-26-2005 02:58 AM
removing linux from a duall boot windows xp/linux setup Golf Nut Computer Information 1 04-24-2004 06:55 PM



Advertisments