Virtualization: Windows vs Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. 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 thinkingâ€, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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 thinkingâ€, 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.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

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

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:45:58 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    > 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.


    Where I work the vast majority of virtualizations (in fact all) have been
    Consolidating MS Windows boxes each with one application or database on
    them.

    All the Unix or Linux boxes either have such big applications or
    databases on them that they need the grunt that can't be delivered by
    individual MS Windows servers, or they are a shared resource that has
    multiple applications or databases (obviously databases not on
    application servers) on them, and for that reason the business can't
    benefit from putting such a shared and busy resource onto another shared
    resource (VM Ware host).

    All our big essential mission critical applications and databases are
    hosted on Unix or Linux servers and were deemed not suitable for
    virtualization.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Aug 29, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-08-28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_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.
     
    Gordon, Aug 29, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-08-28, Enkidu <> 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
     
    Gordon, Aug 29, 2010
    #5
  6. In message <i5alol$2tu$>, 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 thinkingâ€, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 29, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <i5alol$>, 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."

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 29, 2010
    #7
  8. In message
    <>, AD. wrote:

    > On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In message <i5alol$>, 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 thinkingâ€, 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."


    Which don’t seem to have as big a market. Proving the point that
    virtualization is primarily a Windows, not a Linux thing. QED.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 29, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 29, 7:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    >
    > <>, AD. wrote:
    > > On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_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.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 29, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 29/08/10 13:45, Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:45:58 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Where I work the vast majority of virtualizations (in fact all) have been
    > Consolidating MS Windows boxes each with one application or database on
    > them.
    >
    > All the Unix or Linux boxes either have such big applications or
    > databases on them that they need the grunt that can't be delivered by
    > individual MS Windows servers, or they are a shared resource that has
    > multiple applications or databases (obviously databases not on
    > application servers) on them, and for that reason the business can't
    > benefit from putting such a shared and busy resource onto another shared
    > resource (VM Ware host).
    >
    > All our big essential mission critical applications and databases are
    > hosted on Unix or Linux servers and were deemed not suitable for
    > virtualization.
    >

    Someone needs a kick up the arse if that situation has arisen.
    Virtualisation allows quick and easy relocation and addition of resource
    without end user impact and simple elegant load balancing. Basically, I
    don't believe you.

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

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

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 29/08/10 16:58, Gordon wrote:
    > On 2010-08-28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<_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 - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 29/08/10 16:59, Gordon wrote:
    > On 2010-08-28, Enkidu<> 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 - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 29/08/10 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<i5alol$2tu$>, 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 thinkingâ€, 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
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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$>, 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 - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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
    >>
    >> <>, AD. wrote:
    >>> On Aug 29, 5:16 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<_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 - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 29, 11:01 pm, Enkidu <> 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
     
    AD., Aug 29, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Aug 29, 11:00 pm, Enkidu <> 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
     
    AD., Aug 29, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Aug 29, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Aug 29, 2010
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 29/08/10 23:43, AD. wrote:
    > On Aug 29, 11:01 pm, Enkidu<> 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 - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 29, 2010
    #20
    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:
    475
    Knowing About
    Sep 18, 2006
  2. 7
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    554
    arachnid
    Nov 3, 2006
  3. Michael Gossett
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    778
    Jeffrey W. Roach
    Oct 12, 2008
  4. Al Dykes

    Windows 7 logo and Virtualization?

    Al Dykes, Sep 30, 2009, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    544
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Oct 1, 2009
  5. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    537
    Ron Rosenfeld
    Nov 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page