Mta-interface: amavisd-new-2.3.3 (2005-08-22) + Maia Mailguard 1.1.0 at daleenterprise.com
On May 10, 2008, at 11:15 AM, John C. Welch wrote:
On 5/9/08 1:45 PM, "Josh Wisenbaker" <email@hidden> wrote:
What would be a real world use for having this?
Just curious.
If you have multiple physical servers that are lightly loaded, you
can run
them all on the same hardware. For example, many Active Directory
shops run
their Directory Controllers virtualized, because those don't really
do a lot
that needs wicked-fast hardware for their own exclusive use.
This is the exact example I heard at a server seminar this week -
host an Open Directory Replica in a VM on the same hardware as your
Open Directory Master. I would probably host it on another machine,
but still, it got me thinking.
I think that's a pretty bad idea. If the host OS goes down then so
does all the guests. Not to mention the latency requirements of OD
servers. Really you would want your replica on a separate switch or
network.
Oddly, that doesn't seem to be a problem with VMWare in the world.
As well,
there's nothing in the EULA that says "Mac OS X server MUST be the
host OS",
just that you can only run Mac OS X Server on Apple hardware. So an
ESX
setup is possible under the EULA.
Why do people keep quoting an illegal stipulation from the EULA???
Of course, if Xserves and Mac OS X Server are really that
unreliable, that's
not our fault, now is it.
This would make up for some really annoying issues, *in particular*
the fact
that no matter how well Mac OS X Server "scales well enough", Apple
SE's
have a friggin' *coronary* if you dare suggest that you'll do
something as
shockingly *stupid* as run anything else on an OD Master system but
Open
Directory.
Quite frankly, that's just a waste of hardware, and if Apple's
going to
insist on such a ridiculous posture, then they can either make the
damned OS
reliable enough that being an Open Directory Master doesn't exclude
you from
doing such insane things like putting homedirs on the same box, or
they
can...well, no, there's no "or" here. That issue is a stupid one,
because
being an Open Directory master is not something that should require
it's own
dedicated Xserve.
Apple may have an unlimited Xserve budget, the rest of us do not.
I'm rather
tired of this problem, and if it's going to continue to be a
problem for an
infinite amount of time, then maybe we need to start reconsidering
Open
Directory in favor of a less fragile directory service. I know I
can get
equivalent HP servers for half of what an Xserve costs, so it's not
like the
hardware would be a problem for eDirectory or Active Directory.
--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/webmaster%
40macftphttp.serverbox.org
