You're right you know what, let's just take everyone's money and put in in a pile and split it, how's that? You can't create an entire sector of industry that exists solely to serve itself, it's not sustainable. You just have to transition from it slowly and as painlessly as possible. Hopefully by finding a way to repurpose thos workers, maybe by manufacturing, shipping or supporting those new devices.
Please continue to ignore facts and bury your head in the sand. You can ignore the facts, but you can't deny them.
"VMware Infrastructure 3 is the industryâ(TM)s most robust and widely deployed virtualization suite, used by more than 130,000 customers worldwide, including 100 percent of the Fortune 100 and 95 percent of the Fortune Global 500. "
VMWare provides Raw Disk Mapping (RDM) facilities to attach your guest directly to your shared storage. Which is where you attach a guest when disk I/O counts.
Actually not true, you just need to enable it. Here's the short version:
1. Flip to virtual terminal 1 (ctrl+alt+f1)
2. Type "unsupported" + [enter] (there will be no text displayed, no cursor, nothing -- don't worry, just type it)
3. You'll now be dropped to a shell
4. I think you'll need to edit xinet.d or iptables and start the ssh service. Doesn't matter, you can figure out how to start ssh from here (it's already installed).
Yeah for home use you won't really miss them. The main advantages of enterprise are realized after attaching multiple hosts to shared storage (NAS/SAN) and using DRS and HA to redistribute load over many many hosts and reduce downtime.
For personal use ESXi is absolutely phenomenal. We use ESXi in the lab attached to an iSCSI SAN, and if we need to move guests to another host it's very simple, just requires shutting them down first, which is just fine for testing.
Yes, please ignore the tens of thousands of virtualized guests running in VMware, clearly it doesn't work. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I honestly feel like I'm kicking a retarded kid while he's down. VMWare has tens of thousands of satisfied customers that I can point at, and you have one weird scenario for which we still don't know the root cause of the problem. Thank you for your extensive study into VMware, I'll be sure to file that right into the round file.
Yes, just me... and the entire industry. Clearly you're the only smart one. Well I'm glad through your extensive testing of one very odd scenario using one guest on one piece of hardware you've come to the conclusion that VMware is "an abomination". The rest of us will continue to use it, increase uptime and reduce costs (servers, cooling, power, management) while you're still stuck in the dark ages. Enjoy.
Yeah the numbers are obviously way off, he's clearly exaggerating, but also consider that he may be using old hardware without hardware virtualization support, so it may in fact perform poorly.
Try running 4 different unrelated windows apps on the same physical host some time. Watch them all fight endlessly for resources and when it breaks, watch all the software vendors point at each other.
One of the beautiful parts about 1 app per VM (essentially, it's not a hard and fast rule, but it's close). Is that, if the load on any one layer of your "stack" (web, app, database) becomes overwhelmed, it and it alone can be seamlessly migrated to a new physical host where it has a little more room to stretch it's legs.
hahaha this is your example as to why VMware is "an abomination" ? What you described is, at best, a bug. Maybe even in YOUR guest or YOUR software, maybe with one of the virtual drivers. You claim it doesn't "just work" but there are THOUSANDS of users who're running it right now.
I'll leave the audience free to draw their own conclusions.
CentOS isn't built by Redhat, repacked from RHEL RPMs into a community distro (thus the name CentOS, Communuty ENTerprise OS), it's based on Redhat. If that partnership mattered much to XenServer don't you think it would be built in Redhat Enterprise Server?
VMWare's ESX is also a redhat derivative product, so, you want to change your argument at all, or you sticking with that one?
You're doing it wrong. ESXi free works fantastic, we use it in the lab hooked to an OpenFiler "SAN" with some iSCSI targets exported. It works fantastic. I've run CentOS, Fedora, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, even things as random as cisco's unified communication manager (redhat based) and everything "just works".
We will however be switching to XenServer tomorrow because we can get live migration of guests.
"However, there is a way in which I agree with you; we need smarter OS's to interact with the hypervisor better."
What you're describing is paravirtualization, which is already supported using Xen (maybe other hypervisors as well). Quite a few operating systems can be made aware of the fact that their being virtualized and operate efficiently with the hypervisor. What we'll see now is more and more services appearing OUTSIDE the guest. For example, imagine a hypervisor that implemented firewalling or antivirus services for all the guests it's running.
Well the first thing that comes to mind is security. The second is, take any enterprise app and install it on a host. Now add another. Now a 3rd. Now, it breaks, vendors all point at each other. Oh what's that, these apps need different patch levels or operating systems? Oh, well, buy another server. Oh, and you want to scale it up? Have fun requisitioning new hardware, waiting for it to ship, getting it, racking it, cabling it and standing in the datacenter in building it. Before you finished filling out the request for I'm already patching my new guest. Hardware is failing? Oh well, good luck with that. I'll just migrate my guest, repair the server, power it back up and migrate guests back. Or if you're using VMWare DRS it does it all automatically. Speaking of DRS -- load too high on physical host A? No problem, DRS sees the load and migrates the guest to an underutilized host.
The advantages of virtualization are so great I can't even _begin_ to cover them all. But sooner or later you'll just "get it" like I did, and like Intel did when they baked it in the chip. Or microsoft when they released Hyper-V, or EMC when they bought VMWare, or Cisco when they bought ever share of VMWare stock they could get during IPO, or... should I go on?
Slashdot Mirror
1,000 users and >100 apps here and we get maybe 10-20 per DAY.
Since when is 100 helpdesk techs "small"? I must work inside a fucking amoeba...
This is a logical fallacy called "The Broken Window Fallacy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
You're right you know what, let's just take everyone's money and put in in a pile and split it, how's that? You can't create an entire sector of industry that exists solely to serve itself, it's not sustainable. You just have to transition from it slowly and as painlessly as possible. Hopefully by finding a way to repurpose thos workers, maybe by manufacturing, shipping or supporting those new devices.
nice, you even pissed off this hippy just by talking about burning a tire to piss off some other hippys. that's two hippies with a single stone!
Please continue to ignore facts and bury your head in the sand. You can ignore the facts, but you can't deny them.
:)
"VMware Infrastructure 3 is the industryâ(TM)s most robust and widely deployed virtualization suite, used by more than 130,000 customers worldwide, including 100 percent of the Fortune 100 and 95 percent of the Fortune Global 500. "
have a nice day
Benchmarks please.
VMWare provides Raw Disk Mapping (RDM) facilities to attach your guest directly to your shared storage. Which is where you attach a guest when disk I/O counts.
You can also use the VMWare Infrastructure Client. Just point it at the IP address of your ESXi host and login using the root account.
Actually not true, you just need to enable it. Here's the short version:
1. Flip to virtual terminal 1 (ctrl+alt+f1)
2. Type "unsupported" + [enter] (there will be no text displayed, no cursor, nothing -- don't worry, just type it)
3. You'll now be dropped to a shell
4. I think you'll need to edit xinet.d or iptables and start the ssh service. Doesn't matter, you can figure out how to start ssh from here (it's already installed).
Enjoy!
You're right: I can't afford a Ferrari Enzo and a Hyundai Elantra still gets the job done.
Yeah for home use you won't really miss them. The main advantages of enterprise are realized after attaching multiple hosts to shared storage (NAS/SAN) and using DRS and HA to redistribute load over many many hosts and reduce downtime.
For personal use ESXi is absolutely phenomenal. We use ESXi in the lab attached to an iSCSI SAN, and if we need to move guests to another host it's very simple, just requires shutting them down first, which is just fine for testing.
Yes, please ignore the tens of thousands of virtualized guests running in VMware, clearly it doesn't work. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I honestly feel like I'm kicking a retarded kid while he's down. VMWare has tens of thousands of satisfied customers that I can point at, and you have one weird scenario for which we still don't know the root cause of the problem. Thank you for your extensive study into VMware, I'll be sure to file that right into the round file.
Yes, just me ... and the entire industry. Clearly you're the only smart one. Well I'm glad through your extensive testing of one very odd scenario using one guest on one piece of hardware you've come to the conclusion that VMware is "an abomination". The rest of us will continue to use it, increase uptime and reduce costs (servers, cooling, power, management) while you're still stuck in the dark ages. Enjoy.
ESXi is free, not ESX.
Yeah the numbers are obviously way off, he's clearly exaggerating, but also consider that he may be using old hardware without hardware virtualization support, so it may in fact perform poorly.
Try running 4 different unrelated windows apps on the same physical host some time. Watch them all fight endlessly for resources and when it breaks, watch all the software vendors point at each other.
One of the beautiful parts about 1 app per VM (essentially, it's not a hard and fast rule, but it's close). Is that, if the load on any one layer of your "stack" (web, app, database) becomes overwhelmed, it and it alone can be seamlessly migrated to a new physical host where it has a little more room to stretch it's legs.
hahaha this is your example as to why VMware is "an abomination" ? What you described is, at best, a bug. Maybe even in YOUR guest or YOUR software, maybe with one of the virtual drivers. You claim it doesn't "just work" but there are THOUSANDS of users who're running it right now.
I'll leave the audience free to draw their own conclusions.
CentOS isn't built by Redhat, repacked from RHEL RPMs into a community distro (thus the name CentOS, Communuty ENTerprise OS), it's based on Redhat. If that partnership mattered much to XenServer don't you think it would be built in Redhat Enterprise Server?
VMWare's ESX is also a redhat derivative product, so, you want to change your argument at all, or you sticking with that one?
benchmarks please
You're doing it wrong. ESXi free works fantastic, we use it in the lab hooked to an OpenFiler "SAN" with some iSCSI targets exported. It works fantastic. I've run CentOS, Fedora, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, even things as random as cisco's unified communication manager (redhat based) and everything "just works".
We will however be switching to XenServer tomorrow because we can get live migration of guests.
First of all, XenServer 5 has HA.
And does VMware free have it? hahaha no.
VMware standard is required and that will cost you $3624 for a 2 cpu socket license with 1 year of support, without any VirtualCenter license.
Licenses costs, plural. For all you know he has 100 physical servers.
"However, there is a way in which I agree with you; we need smarter OS's to interact with the hypervisor better."
What you're describing is paravirtualization, which is already supported using Xen (maybe other hypervisors as well). Quite a few operating systems can be made aware of the fact that their being virtualized and operate efficiently with the hypervisor. What we'll see now is more and more services appearing OUTSIDE the guest. For example, imagine a hypervisor that implemented firewalling or antivirus services for all the guests it's running.
Well the first thing that comes to mind is security. The second is, take any enterprise app and install it on a host. Now add another. Now a 3rd. Now, it breaks, vendors all point at each other. Oh what's that, these apps need different patch levels or operating systems? Oh, well, buy another server. Oh, and you want to scale it up? Have fun requisitioning new hardware, waiting for it to ship, getting it, racking it, cabling it and standing in the datacenter in building it. Before you finished filling out the request for I'm already patching my new guest. Hardware is failing? Oh well, good luck with that. I'll just migrate my guest, repair the server, power it back up and migrate guests back. Or if you're using VMWare DRS it does it all automatically. Speaking of DRS -- load too high on physical host A? No problem, DRS sees the load and migrates the guest to an underutilized host.
... should I go on?
The advantages of virtualization are so great I can't even _begin_ to cover them all. But sooner or later you'll just "get it" like I did, and like Intel did when they baked it in the chip. Or microsoft when they released Hyper-V, or EMC when they bought VMWare, or Cisco when they bought ever share of VMWare stock they could get during IPO, or