Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> Management vs. the virtual server
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Virtualization is certainly creating a lot of buzz in the industry, but
> | despite the technology's hefty promises of cost cutting and
> | consolidation, the vast majority of businesses are still running on
> | physical hardware.
> `----
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/09/linuxworld07_ideas_virtual_study/
>
> This means that more Linux use is on its way. Businesses are just ignorant
> for the time being.
>
No not ignorant. Good virtualisation is only a year or so old, we had it
before with various levels of 'not bad' through to 'reasonably good'. But
not really trusty enough for use in house. Web hosts love it of cause, but
they are in a different situation to those inside networks.
Now that we have two very good systems, and a few less known but getting
good write ups, then it is definately more viable inhouse.
But do you rip apart the servers you have and go virtual? No I wouldn't have
thought so.
You always plan in years in IT, you know the rate of increase of resource
use so you have a decent idea how long you have to the next upgrade or
system change. Unfortunately for Linux server vendors, Linux is so bloody
good that if you want new servers or a really good opertunity to do a
complete overhaul, then you are usually looking a few years ahead, or you
give a server a swift kick every time you pass it just to shorten it's life
a bit.
Just this week I thought my current oldest server 2002 was going to die, I
got all excited and checked the HP server web site even before I looked at
what was wrong with the server, those HP Prolient's are worth their weight
in gold to any IT dept, but it turned out the old server was just wanting
me to take it's scsi card out, give it a wipe and put it back in. I
distinctly heard it say 'thank you' as I closed the case, it did, honest,
you ask anyone who has a server and they will tell you that they talk to
them and the servers reply.
|
|
