Anti-Virtualization

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2009.

  1. With sufficiently good performance per watt, could you simply abandon the
    virtualization trend and pack lots of cheap, cool-running physical CPUs
    into the box?

    <http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/09/arm-attacks-atom-with-2ghz-a9-can-servers-be-far-behind.ars>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    On Sep 22, 12:44 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > With sufficiently good performance per watt, could you simply abandon the
    > virtualization trend and pack lots of cheap, cool-running physical CPUs
    > into the box?
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/09/arm-attacks-atom-with-2g...>


    No....again you have a tendency to only look at the micro
    level...there is more to a server in terms of heat output than just
    the CPU. Then there are other aspects like high availability that
    virtualisation can offer, hardware independence.....easy migration,
    standard "hardware" platforms for the guests....snap shots....adequate
    peak load safety margins....

    Early blades were really meant to be what is discussed here, small,
    low wattage boxes in quantity, Virtualisation achieves the same thing
    only cheaper still....As an example we deploy a virtual guest for
    about $1500~$2000, and deploy 40~50 of these in a 2 x 3U form factor
    (3u for the server and 3u for its disk array...ie 1 tray of EMC SAN
    disk. So about $90k for 50 guests....or about 30watts per guest
    total...
     
    thingy, Sep 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <0c54938a-
    >, thingy wrote:

    > Then there are other aspects like high availability that
    > virtualisation can offer ...


    Virtualization does not offer high availability. If the hardware goes down,
    ALL the virtual machines running on that hardware go down.

    > Early blades were really meant to be what is discussed here, small,
    > low wattage boxes in quantity, Virtualisation achieves the same thing
    > only cheaper still....


    Maybe not. That was one of the points in the article, in case you didn't
    notice.

    > ....or about 30watts per guest total...


    ARM CPUs use a fraction of that. Which is the point.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 22, 4:58 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <0c54938a-
    >
    > >, thingy wrote:
    > > Then there are other aspects like high availability that
    > > virtualisation can offer ...

    > Virtualization does not offer high availability. If the hardware goes down,
    > ALL the virtual machines running on that hardware go down.


    In a high availability configuration we run, it can. We have multiple
    servers deployed in a HA cluster. Normally, the virtual machines run
    distributed across the servers, however should one server physically
    fail, then the VM's become operational on one of the remaining
    operational servers.
     
    Simon, Sep 22, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <0c54938a-
    > >, thingy
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Then there are other aspects like high availability that
    >> virtualisation can offer ...

    >
    > Virtualization does not offer high availability. If the hardware goes
    > down, ALL the virtual machines running on that hardware go down.
    >

    ....and can be brought up seconds later on another host server.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
     
    Enkidu, Sep 22, 2009
    #5
  6. In message <>, Simon wrote:

    > On Sep 22, 4:58 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >> In message <0c54938a-
    >>
    >> >, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Then there are other aspects like high availability that
    >>> virtualisation can offer ...

    >>
    >> Virtualization does not offer high availability. If the hardware goes
    >> down, ALL the virtual machines running on that hardware go down.

    >
    > In a high availability configuration we run, it can. We have multiple
    > servers deployed in a HA cluster. Normally, the virtual machines run
    > distributed across the servers, however should one server physically
    > fail, then the VM's become operational on one of the remaining
    > operational servers.


    But there is still a few seconds' downtime, is there not, for ALL of the VMs
    affected by the outage? As opposed to only a single physical machine being
    affected.

    The fact remains, virtualization is inherently in conflict with high
    availability.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 22, 8:19 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    > But there is still a few seconds' downtime, is there not, for ALL of the VMs
    > affected by the outage? As opposed to only a single physical machine being
    > affected.


    Again, that depends upon the exact configuration. Our business has
    mandated three nine's (99.9%) of reliability, so we actually have
    around 10 minutes per week of allowable downtime. Should a failure
    occur, this is more than sufficient for the fail-over to occur and the
    inactive VM's to initialise. There are also a number of alternative
    configurations that would allow near instantaneous initialisation, and
    we are currently investigating these.

    > The fact remains, virtualization is inherently in conflict with high
    > availability.


    No, not at all.
     
    Simon, Sep 23, 2009
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Knowing About

    Opsware Offers Virtualization View

    Knowing About, Sep 18, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    472
    Knowing About
    Sep 18, 2006
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    806
  3. 7
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    550
    arachnid
    Nov 3, 2006
  4. Mark Gillespie

    x64 and Vanderpool virtualization.

    Mark Gillespie, Jul 18, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    549
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Virtualization

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    382
    thingy
    Oct 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page