Thread-topic: Virtualization... to the original question.. Running Xen on OSX
On 10/08/2007 16:11 PM, "Dave Pooser" <email@hidden> wrote:
>> I agree, but to play devil's advocate, a lot of the win in Apple's
>> mind comes from using Mac OS X Server *with* Xserve, in essentially
>> one supported configuration,
> Except that it's also supported on Mac Pro, iMac G4/G5/Intel, Mac Mini,
> eMac, and Xserve G4/G5/G4 Cluster Node/G5 Cluster Node. So adding a single
> supported VM configuration isn't that much additional overhead.
Define "not that much"?
You still need sufficient "disk" to run the OS and whatever service you
want. If your VM has to be 40GB or 80GB, that's what you're going to need.
VM doesn't make that go away. You still need sufficient RAM, Disk I/O,
memory I/O, and network I/O to do the services the VM needs.
VMs are really handy and they do solve the problem of having too much
underutilized hardware eating HVAC and power without good return. But they
are not a magic spell, and use a non-zero amount of resources outside of
HVAC and power. You still need sufficient resources on the VM server to
handle each VM's needs. That's not cheap by any means.
For Windows, VMs are a no-brainer, because Windows has craptacular memory
management, and due to the fragility of the registry and a host of other bad
decisions, running multiple services, or even a single heavily loaded
service on a Windows box is a Really Bad Idea.
For Unix, the VM decision isn't as automatic. Unix-based OS's are usually
more reliable than Windows, and definitely more repairable. They have far
less management overhead than Windows per box, and unless you have some
solid Active Directory and VBA/SMI skills, on a per-network basis too.
I know at my company, the VMWare for Unixen question isn't as much of an
issue, because to virtualize even my Xserve G4 would put a real hit on a VM
box. All my Unix servers run at 90% utilization before I even *think* about
adding another box. Database, network, you name it. They all run happy as
clams at 90% or higher utilization, so the problems you hit with Windows at
these kinds of usage levels are not an issue.
Virtualization, like everything else, solves a specific set of problems. It
is NOT a spell of "never needing hardware again", nor is it a spell of
"magically running n OS instances for near-zero resource costs".
It is no more the "perfect" solution for all needs than any other "perfect"
solution has been. But it is getting the "Virtualization is a magic spell"
press a lot, so I can see why people start to think it is.
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden