Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [redhat] A few points to ponder

Expand Messages
  • Scott
    ... That, and it will have to work. I m going to have to start a new Quo Vadis Fedora thread. If they are aiming at the user fleeing WinPle (Windows/Apple)
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
      On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Dan wrote:
      > In my short stint at RedHat, they definitely had a desktop going. I like
      > it but it seemed to be less then rock stable
      > Where I think RedHat is missing the desktop market is that they will
      > never make inroads as long as they have an $80 annual fee for it.

      That, and it will have to work. I'm going to have to start a new Quo
      Vadis Fedora thread. If they are aiming at the user fleeing WinPle
      (Windows/Apple) they'll have to possibly compromise on the no non-free
      software. Hrrm, I think as we have Thad on the list, when I have time
      to post this, I'll post what Ubuntu does right and Fedora doesn't, and
      vice versa.

      At present, Fedora is schizophrenic, not sure who they're aiming at.


      --
      Scott Robbins
      PGP keyID EB3467D6
      ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
      gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

      Willow: I just talked to Buffy, and yeah, I think she's feeling a
      little... insane. No, not bitchy crazy, more like homicidal
      maniac crazy. So I told her to come see you, 'kay?
    • Scott
      ... Ah, for me, that 32 bit is almost a deal breaker. I m so proud of my new shiny 64 bit quad core. I keep meaning to play with it, but the only machine I
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
        On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:40:15PM -0700, Dan wrote:
        > Remember that 32 bit ESX is available free, and what is this 4
        > limit...with ESX you can have a windows, a RedHat Linux, a Solaris, an
        > old Windows.....

        Ah, for me, that 32 bit is almost a deal breaker. I'm so proud of my new
        shiny 64 bit quad core.

        I keep meaning to play with it, but the only machine I have that could
        probably run it at all well is that one.

        --
        Scott Robbins
        PGP keyID EB3467D6
        ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
        gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

        Harmony: Is Antonio Banderas a vampire?
        Spike:No.
        Harmony: Can I make him one?
        Spike: No. On second thought, yes. Go make him a vampire. Take
        your time. Get Melanie and the kids, too.
      • Thad Floryan
        ... Hmmm, interesting. How efficient (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running the various guest OSs? Several attempts with Fedora s
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
          --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:40:15PM -0700, Dan wrote:
          > > Remember that 32 bit ESX is available free, and what is this 4
          > > limit...with ESX you can have a windows, a RedHat Linux, a Solaris, an
          > > old Windows.....
          >
          > Ah, for me, that 32 bit is almost a deal breaker. I'm so proud of my
          > new shiny 64 bit quad core.
          >
          > I keep meaning to play with it, but the only machine I have that could
          > probably run it at all well is that one.

          Hmmm, interesting.

          How "efficient" (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running
          the various "guest" OSs?

          Several attempts with Fedora's virtualization several years ago left me
          cold and I haven't played with it since. My prior experience with a
          similar concept was with the Foonly computer family (late 1970s to
          early 1980s) that did it properly: hardware microcode so that each
          process (could have) had a virtual machine (possibly) different from
          that used by other processes. Oddly, the Wikipedia article:

          <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foonly>

          doesn't mention that fact. A number of those systems were bought by
          the US Navy and that's how I became involved (indirectly through
          Tymshare where I worked from the late 1960s to 1972).

          One interesting thing I've noticed is that many AMD chips claim to
          support virtualization but many Intel chips do not. I have some chips
          arriving later today (UPS claims "Out for Delivery" :-) that I intend
          to experiment with regarding virtualization (these are some newer AMD
          chips) in several of my newer desktops. These experiments will be with
          Fedora 10.

          Does ESX require specific CPU chip support for virtualization or is it
          all a software thingie?
        • Jeff Lane
          Wow... Shucks, even this list is mostly for you, Jeff, Thad and myself to have our conversations, with the hope that the newcomers learn from them. I m
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
            Wow... "Shucks, even this list is mostly for you, Jeff, Thad and myself to have
            our conversations, with the hope that the newcomers learn from them."

            I'm honored to be included in such illustrious company ;-)

            On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Dan <hyattdj@...> wrote:
            > In my short stint at RedHat, they definitely had a desktop going. I like it but it seemed to
            > be less then rock stable. Where I think RedHat is missing the desktop market is that they
            > will never make inroads as long as they have an $80 annual fee for it.

            Which makes me kinda wonder what their goal really is. From the
            releases I've read on their site, it's not so much "Hey, lets start
            making a desktop product again" as it is "Hey, lets use virtualization
            and create corporate exportable desktops a la thin clients and sell
            that to our existing customers. Oh, and we can sell it to other
            people to! PROFIT!"

            At least, that's going on what I read a couple weeks ago.

            > If they have an annual support fee if you want to get an answer from them, or a case by case
            > support fee that would emulate Microsucks. But RedHat can do it for less. So if they offered
            > the Desktop for home users for $30 a subscription, and $15 for students (life of that
            > version), they might quickly overtake Microsoft. But they would have to provide some user
            > level online support on how to configure desktop to burn CDs, watch movies, what users need
            > to configure on Thunderbird, and do like VMWare does: create a bulletproof version of RedHat
            > that you cannot break if you do not administer it.

            Way back when I worked there, my first job was doing end user support.
            The biggest reason end user products went away was that end user
            products in Linux were a dead end. A big money hole. No matter how
            much money they put into it, they'd never recoup the expenses, even
            after factoring in the corporate customers, enterprise support, custom
            engineering and all the other pies they had their hands in.

            IIRC, for 80 bucks back in the day, you'd get an end user box set with
            an install guide and some CDs, PLUS you got something like 6 months of
            tech support to go with it. The problem is, at 80 bucks a box, most
            people were more interested in downloading it for free and foregoing
            the support, so home/end-user stuff became a serious drain on revenue.

            When I got laid off, it was the end of the end user interest at RH.
            Better than half my team was cut as they slowly ended end-user support
            and box sets and any activities in the home sector... then Fedora was
            born.

            I agree with you, that doing something like you describe could be a
            Good Thing[tm] and I'd love to see it. Honestly, I'd love to see box
            sets back on the shelves at Best Buy or wherever too, but I think
            those days are long gone. Hell, I still have a shelf full of box sets
            that I keep for old time's sake.

            As I was saying though, I think you've got a good idea there... market
            a desktop to students and end-users and charge them a subscription,
            maybe 50 bucks a year (hell, most people pay more than 50 a year once
            they pay for anti-virus updates and other security software
            subscriptions for Windows) for RHN access. Recreate the old Red Hat
            Forums and point end users there for support.

            Back in the day, one of my job functions was as admin/owner of the RH
            Forums and once end user support went mostly away, that was where we
            pointed people for support. Mostly community support, but Hatters did
            sit on the various forums and answer questions and participate. For
            that honor, I got the nifty corporate title "Community Liaison" which
            didn't really mean anything, but hey, it's on my resume. Anyway, the
            Forums didn't do so well because people at that point were more
            interested in mailing lists and usenet still. I think it could work
            better today, but starting a successful community today is a major
            undertaking, since there are already so many existing ones.

            One reason I am still on this list, beyond the excellent company, is
            that I really don't care too much for niche lists. I prefer general
            lists, or forums that have various niche subforums. My complaint with
            forums is that they are just that, forums, and I have to actively
            visit them to find new posts and such. With lists like this, the
            posts come directly to me and I don't have to spend time hunting for
            them. Plus, with forums and niche communities, I'd have to keep up
            with God knows how many different websites on a frequent basis, and I
            just don't have the time or desire to do that...

            But I do miss Godwin's wit...

            Plus, I'm old school. I grew up on listservs and USENET and I don't
            get these face books and your spaces and all this crazy stuff you kids
            have these days with your lolcats and your text speeks... ;-)

            Jeff
            >



            --
            ------------------> Jeffrey Lane - W4KDH <-------------------
            www.jefflane.org
            Another cog in the great
            Corporate Wheel

            The internet has no government, no constitution, no laws, no
            rights, no police, no courts. Don't talk about fairness or
            innocence, and don't talk about what should be done. Instead,
            talk about what is being done and what will be done by the
            amorphous unreachable undefinable blob called "the internet
            user base." -Paul Vixie
          • Jeff Lane
            ... That would depend on what your definition of efficient is. If efficient == utilizing 100% or near 100% of your physical resources instead of leaving 50%
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
              On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@...> wrote:
              > How "efficient" (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running
              > the various "guest" OSs?

              That would depend on what your definition of efficient is. If
              efficient == utilizing 100% or near 100% of your physical resources
              instead of leaving 50% idle, then yes, virtualization can be
              effecient. However, if you mean efficient == I can run 4 guests and
              use them without worrying about the guests running slow, or being
              jerky, then maybe not so much :-)

              > Several attempts with Fedora's virtualization several years ago left me
              > cold and I haven't played with it since. My prior experience with a
              > similar concept was with the Foonly computer family (late 1970s to
              > early 1980s) that did it properly: hardware microcode so that each
              > process (could have) had a virtual machine (possibly) different from
              > that used by other processes. Oddly, the Wikipedia article:

              I've been working with Xen and VMWare for a few years now and my
              personal opinion is that VMWare is still far superior when it comes to
              actually running guest operating systems. Xen, at least when I get my
              hands on it, tends to be finicky, guests seem to do weird things...
              one OS doesn't have a working mouse, one doesn't have working video
              when in a console, one works, but suffers from horrible timer lag.
              Hell, I even had one running last fall that for every 5 seconds of
              actual time that passed, the guest's system clock would advance 30
              minutes. By the time I had run a 36 hour stress test on the system,
              the guest was showing a date well into spring of 2010... heh...

              > Does ESX require specific CPU chip support for virtualization or is it
              > all a software thingie?

              No. At least for the moment, ESX is all software or
              paravirtualization. ESX doesn't officially have actual hardware
              support yet. Xen does have hardware support, and that does require
              Intel chips with VT-D or AMD chips with their equivalent.

              Cheers
              Jeff


              --
              ------------------> Jeffrey Lane - W4KDH <-------------------
              www.jefflane.org
              Another cog in the great
              Corporate Wheel

              The internet has no government, no constitution, no laws, no
              rights, no police, no courts. Don't talk about fairness or
              innocence, and don't talk about what should be done. Instead,
              talk about what is being done and what will be done by the
              amorphous unreachable undefinable blob called "the internet
              user base." -Paul Vixie
            • Dan
              ... ESXi is the 32 byte ESX is the 64byte But costs $$$$$ VMWare standard runs on top of your RHEL5 standard installation, but is not as good as ESX BUT you
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                Scott wrote:
                >
                > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:40:15PM -0700, Dan wrote:
                > > Remember that 32 bit ESX is available free, and what is this 4
                > > limit...with ESX you can have a windows, a RedHat Linux, a Solaris, an
                > > old Windows.....
                >
                > Ah, for me, that 32 bit is almost a deal breaker. I'm so proud of my new
                > shiny 64 bit quad core.
                >
                > I keep meaning to play with it, but the only machine I have that could
                > probably run it at all well is that one.
                >

                ESXi is the 32 byte
                ESX is the 64byte But costs $$$$$
                VMWare standard runs on top of your RHEL5 standard installation, but is
                not as good as ESX
                BUT you can run other OSs on your 64byte platform under VMWare!!!


                ESX has a compact RedHat kernel which is highly secure, and uses few
                resource. So you can install multiple OS's on top of it.

                VMWare (non ESX) lays down on YOUR RHEL5 installation. So you can run
                Windows or test beds on your RedHat box.

                One of those splitting hairs things.

                The great thing about VMWare/ESX is that you can install them on your
                PIV box and play with it until you are an expert.....not that much to
                learn. Now you have a great skill to sell to your new employers..


                D.
                >
                > --
                > Scott Robbins
                > PGP keyID EB3467D6
                > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
                > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
                >
                > Harmony: Is Antonio Banderas a vampire?
                > Spike:No.
                > Harmony: Can I make him one?
                > Spike: No. On second thought, yes. Go make him a vampire. Take
                > your time. Get Melanie and the kids, too.
                >
                >
              • Scott
                ... For what it s worth, a fellow with the user name of stevea did a test about a year ago with KVM, which is probably going to be RH/Fedora focus in the
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                  On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:57:14PM -0000, Thad Floryan wrote:
                  > --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hmmm, interesting.
                  >
                  > How "efficient" (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running
                  > the various "guest" OSs?

                  For what it's worth, a fellow with the user name of stevea did a test
                  about a year ago with KVM, which is probably going to be RH/Fedora focus
                  in the future, rather than Xen, and VirtualBox. I forget the
                  statistics, I think I have a link at
                  http://home.roadrunner.com/~computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html. He found
                  that, using a Win98 native install as a benchmark of 0, KVM could be a
                  tiny bit faster and VBox a tiny bit slower--they've both improved since
                  then, VBox will take advantage of CPUs with VT support built in.

                  I think it depends upon the demands--I seldom make very many. At
                  present, for example, I'll run a minimal Ubuntu install to get all the
                  packages Fedora lacks, convert them with alien, scp it to the Fedora box
                  and use yum localinstall.

                  >
                  > Several attempts with Fedora's virtualization several years ago left me
                  > cold and I haven't played with it since. My prior experience with a
                  > similar concept was with the Foonly computer family (late 1970s to
                  > early 1980s) that did it properly: hardware microcode so that each
                  > process (could have) had a virtual machine (possibly) different from
                  > that used by other processes. Oddly, the Wikipedia article:


                  It's definitely improved. At present, for end users, VirtualBox is
                  possibly the best choice, again depending upon what you need. Even Wine
                  has greatly improved, one just installs it then runs wine <path-to-exe>.

                  --
                  Scott Robbins
                  PGP keyID EB3467D6
                  ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
                  gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

                  Xander: Isn't that what they called The Slayer?
                  Willow: Buffy, ohh scary.
                  Xander: Someone has to talk to her people. That name is striking
                  fear in nobody's hearts.
                • Scott
                  ... He s the owner, or co-owner, of linux@yahoogroups,com, though like many of us, he s soured over the years. :) ... Well, I confess, as a cat lover, some of
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                    On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:17:16AM -0400, Jeff Lane wrote:


                    >
                    > One reason I am still on this list, beyond the excellent company, is
                    > that I really don't care too much for niche lists. I prefer general
                    > lists, or forums that have various niche subforums. My complaint with
                    > forums is that they are just that, forums, and I have to actively
                    > visit them to find new posts and such. With lists like this, the
                    > posts come directly to me and I don't have to spend time hunting for
                    > them. Plus, with forums and niche communities, I'd have to keep up
                    > with God knows how many different websites on a frequent basis, and I
                    > just don't have the time or desire to do that...
                    >
                    > But I do miss Godwin's wit...

                    He's the owner, or co-owner, of linux@yahoogroups,com, though like many
                    of us, he's soured over the years. :)


                    >
                    > Plus, I'm old school. I grew up on listservs and USENET and I don't
                    > get these face books and your spaces and all this crazy stuff you kids
                    > have these days with your lolcats and your text speeks... ;-)

                    Well, I confess, as a cat lover, some of the lolcats are amusing.
                    Granted the silly spelling is wearing, but some of them are quite
                    clever.

                    I prefer mailing lists to forums as well, for the same reason--also, I
                    can very quickly ssh into my home machine from anywhere and check my
                    mail, whereas, if I'm at my parents' for example, I have to get to the
                    website, log in and check for posts. Many forums now though, at least
                    have a subscribe to thread option where you can be emailed notification
                    of new posts on a thread that you're watching. If you ever join Fedora
                    forums, let me know. There was a new member there recently, with Jeff
                    in his username and I'd thought it was you--embarrassing that he turned
                    out to be someone else who isn't a Buffy fan, but he was nice about it.


                    --
                    Scott Robbins
                    PGP keyID EB3467D6
                    ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
                    gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

                    Anya: This isn't a relationship. You don't need me. All
                    you care about is lots of orgasms.
                    Xander: Okay, remember how we talked about private conversations?
                    How they're less private when they're in front of my friends?
                    Spike: Oh we're not your friends. Go on.
                    Giles: Please don't
                  • Dan
                    ... Where I like ESX over XEN and it might have been my skill level...which is a major issue... XEN always was, as you say finiky, the helpdesk guys at RedHat
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                      Jeff Lane wrote:
                      >
                      > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@...
                      > <mailto:thad%40thadlabs.com>> wrote:
                      > > How "efficient" (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running
                      > > the various "guest" OSs?
                      >
                      > That would depend on what your definition of efficient is. If
                      > efficient == utilizing 100% or near 100% of your physical resources
                      > instead of leaving 50% idle, then yes, virtualization can be
                      > effecient. However, if you mean efficient == I can run 4 guests and
                      > use them without worrying about the guests running slow, or being
                      > jerky, then maybe not so much :-)
                      >
                      > > Several attempts with Fedora's virtualization several years ago left me
                      > > cold and I haven't played with it since. My prior experience with a
                      > > similar concept was with the Foonly computer family (late 1970s to
                      > > early 1980s) that did it properly: hardware microcode so that each
                      > > process (could have) had a virtual machine (possibly) different from
                      > > that used by other processes. Oddly, the Wikipedia article:
                      >
                      > I've been working with Xen and VMWare for a few years now and my
                      > personal opinion is that VMWare is still far superior when it comes to
                      > actually running guest operating systems. Xen, at least when I get my
                      > hands on it, tends to be finicky, guests seem to do weird things...
                      > one OS doesn't have a working mouse, one doesn't have working video
                      > when in a console, one works, but suffers from horrible timer lag.
                      > Hell, I even had one running last fall that for every 5 seconds of
                      > actual time that passed, the guest's system clock would advance 30
                      > minutes. By the time I had run a 36 hour stress test on the system,
                      > the guest was showing a date well into spring of 2010... heh...
                      >
                      > > Does ESX require specific CPU chip support for virtualization or is it
                      > > all a software thingie?
                      >
                      > No. At least for the moment, ESX is all software or
                      > paravirtualization. ESX doesn't officially have actual hardware
                      > support yet. Xen does have hardware support, and that does require
                      > Intel chips with VT-D or AMD chips with their equivalent.
                      >
                      > Cheers
                      > Jeff
                      >
                      > --
                      > ------------------> Jeffrey Lane - W4KDH <-------------------
                      > www.jefflane.org
                      > Another cog in the great
                      > Corporate Wheel
                      >
                      > The internet has no government, no constitution, no laws, no
                      > rights, no police, no courts. Don't talk about fairness or
                      > innocence, and don't talk about what should be done. Instead,
                      > talk about what is being done and what will be done by the
                      > amorphous unreachable undefinable blob called "the internet
                      > user base." -Paul Vixie
                      >
                      >

                      Where I like ESX over XEN and it might have been my skill level...which
                      is a major issue...
                      XEN always was, as you say finiky, the helpdesk guys at RedHat could set
                      me up guest OSs on the server, but I could never do it and be happy with
                      the result.

                      Yet with ESX and VMWare I was able to set it up correctly the second or
                      third time and it was not easy to muck up.
                      The stability was there, and I was able to take 30 low utilization
                      RedHat servers, move them to RHEL5 on ESX on 10 pieces of hardware.

                      The cheap and unreasonable CIO at my last company reversed himself and
                      stopped buying HP 380s and made us reuse 5 year old black boxes that
                      were at EOL. He also ignored me when I tried to point out that if the
                      windows server runs badly on a standalone box you cannot put two of
                      those servers on ESX and claim virtualization will solve the memory/cpu
                      issue. Then blame me for the server grinding to a halt.

                      VMWare, imagine having an overbuilt internal server running at idle,
                      being able to install VMWare on it, and loading another RHEL or windows
                      server or two on it without trashing the server. Great for sandboxes or
                      emergency servers too.

                      So, I am sold on ESX and VMWare until someone shows me something better.
                    • Dan
                      ... Another way to word...think of ESX as a RedHat RHEL5 thin client with almost everything stripped off. So it is taking 64meg of memory (maybe) 5% of CPU
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                        Scott wrote:
                        >
                        > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:57:14PM -0000, Thad Floryan wrote:
                        > > --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com <mailto:redhat%40yahoogroups.com>,
                        > Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hmmm, interesting.
                        > >
                        > > How "efficient" (for wont of a better word) is virtualization running
                        > > the various "guest" OSs?
                        >
                        > For what it's worth, a fellow with the user name of stevea did a test
                        > about a year ago with KVM, which is probably going to be RH/Fedora focus
                        > in the future, rather than Xen, and VirtualBox. I forget the
                        > statistics, I think I have a link at
                        > http://home.roadrunner.com/~computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html.
                        > <http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Ecomputertaijutsu/vmcomp.html.> He found
                        > that, using a Win98 native install as a benchmark of 0, KVM could be a
                        > tiny bit faster and VBox a tiny bit slower--they've both improved since
                        > then, VBox will take advantage of CPUs with VT support built in.
                        >
                        > I think it depends upon the demands--I seldom make very many. At
                        > present, for example, I'll run a minimal Ubuntu install to get all the
                        > packages Fedora lacks, convert them with alien, scp it to the Fedora box
                        > and use yum localinstall.
                        >
                        > >
                        > > Several attempts with Fedora's virtualization several years ago left me
                        > > cold and I haven't played with it since. My prior experience with a
                        > > similar concept was with the Foonly computer family (late 1970s to
                        > > early 1980s) that did it properly: hardware microcode so that each
                        > > process (could have) had a virtual machine (possibly) different from
                        > > that used by other processes. Oddly, the Wikipedia article:
                        >
                        > It's definitely improved. At present, for end users, VirtualBox is
                        > possibly the best choice, again depending upon what you need. Even Wine
                        > has greatly improved, one just installs it then runs wine <path-to-exe>.
                        >
                        > --
                        > Scott Robbins
                        > PGP keyID EB3467D6
                        > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
                        > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
                        >
                        > Xander: Isn't that what they called The Slayer?
                        > Willow: Buffy, ohh scary.
                        > Xander: Someone has to talk to her people. That name is striking
                        > fear in nobody's hearts.
                        >
                        >
                        Another way to word...think of ESX as a RedHat RHEL5 thin client with
                        almost everything stripped off.
                        So it is taking 64meg of memory (maybe)
                        5% of CPU (maybe)
                        and less then 5 gig of disk space.
                        A little more then a couple of web browsers or a web client.

                        The rest of your 2-4 gig is for your servers. No you dont want to run
                        major photoshop or a big oracle DB on virtualization IMHO
                        But you can have a half dozen OS's primed and ready to go, and
                        successfully running 2-4 light servers on your hardware...even with only
                        2 gig of memory and a single CPU.
                        I was running a light WebServer running apache, an FTP server, a light
                        windows server (if there is such a thing), and another light server on
                        an old PIV 1.8 gig server with 2 gig of ram and had no noticable
                        performance problems....Note the work light servers.
                      • Jeff Lane
                        ... What really got ESX and ESXi for me was VMotion and their whole Virtual Infrastructure setup... it s incredibly annoying that you need their VIC to
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 11, 2009
                          On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Dan <hyattdj@...> wrote:

                          > So, I am sold on ESX and VMWare until someone shows me something better.

                          What really got ESX and ESXi for me was VMotion and their whole
                          Virtual Infrastructure setup... it's incredibly annoying that you
                          need their VIC to administer a datacenter, and that VIC will only run
                          on Windows... BUT... when you can move a running server from host to
                          host without taking that server down, and when you can load balance so
                          VMs migrate on the fly as load on one physical machine hits a
                          threshold ... if I were an admin in a datacenter, that would make me
                          happy as a clam....

                          My biggest disappointment with Xen initially was migration, and it
                          still isn't easy. Now, mind you, my experience is with Xen itself...
                          I've never hand the chance to muck about with the management stuff
                          Citrix sells as we only deal with the stuff that comes bundled with
                          RHEL and SLES, but still... it's distressing that in the number of
                          years that OSS Xen has been around, no one has created a reliable and
                          useful admin tool beyond virt-manager which is just barely above
                          useless... it's almost analogous to the old days with linuxconf...
                          the only difference is that virt-manager doesn't hose your system when
                          you run it :-)
                        • Thad Floryan
                          ... Thanks! VT-D was what I was seeking in order to get more info. It appears none of the new Intel CPU chips I installed over the past 24 hours support
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 12, 2009
                            --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lane <sundowner225@...> wrote:
                            > [...]
                            > No. At least for the moment, ESX is all software or
                            > paravirtualization. ESX doesn't officially have actual hardware
                            > support yet. Xen does have hardware support, and that does require
                            > Intel chips with VT-D or AMD chips with their equivalent.

                            Thanks! "VT-D" was what I was seeking in order to get more info. It
                            appears none of the new Intel CPU chips I installed over the past 24
                            hours support VT-D. All of the AMD chips I installed support AMD-V.

                            I now have all the info docs from both AMD and Intel. Heh, there's
                            even a free "Virtualization for Dummies" book from AMD:

                            <http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Virt_for_Dummies.pdf>

                            :-)

                            One thing that's interesting: Intel's chips require enabling it via a
                            BIOS setting whereas AMD's virtualization is always available. Looks
                            like I have several days' worth of reading about IOMMU and related
                            technology before giving virtualization another shot. I was surprised
                            to learn that both the IBM/370 and the Motorola MC68020 have native
                            virtualization -- that goes back several decades.

                            Lucky for me, one of the AMD 4850e chips I installed is on a system
                            without an OS yet, so that'll be my test bed. The AMD HSFs for these
                            are the smallest I've seen for any modern chip; the "e" is for energy
                            efficiency yet these are dual-core at 2.5 GHz with 1MB L2 cache (and
                            the price was right :-)

                            One of the systems I upgraded to a 4850e is already running Fedora 9
                            and it "feels" quite responsive; I'll put a Fedora 10 on the test bed
                            system.
                          • Thad Floryan
                            ... I ve heard the same from others (elsewhere). Color me clueless, but I don t understand why the 30 servers services aren t simply placed on the 10 pieces
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 12, 2009
                              --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com, Dan <hyattdj@...> wrote:
                              > [...]
                              > The stability was there, and I was able to take 30 low utilization
                              > RedHat servers, move them to RHEL5 on ESX on 10 pieces of hardware.

                              I've heard the same from others (elsewhere). Color me clueless, but
                              I don't understand why the 30 servers' services aren't simply placed
                              on the 10 pieces of hardware without incurring virtualization overhead
                              for 30 guest OSs which has to be measureable.

                              > [...]
                              > VMWare, imagine having an overbuilt internal server running at idle,
                              > being able to install VMWare on it, and loading another RHEL or
                              > windows server or two on it without trashing the server. Great for
                              > sandboxes or emergency servers too.

                              NOW we're getting somewhere!

                              Those two applications, sandbox or emergency server, sound like the
                              *IDEAL* uses for virtualization (if spare hardware isn't available).

                              I've been having a difficult time seeing virualization as other than
                              something to play with on one (hardware) system due to budget.

                              Thanks for the heads up!
                            • Jeff Lane
                              ... But... but... DONT QUESTION! :-) There are other uses... personally, having tested Xen and VMware for a few years now, I would NOT run Xen in a production
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 13, 2009
                                On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Thad Floryan <thad@...> wrote:
                                > I've heard the same from others (elsewhere). Color me clueless, but
                                > I don't understand why the 30 servers' services aren't simply placed
                                > on the 10 pieces of hardware without incurring virtualization overhead
                                > for 30 guest OSs which has to be measureable.

                                But... but... DONT QUESTION! :-)

                                There are other uses... personally, having tested Xen and VMware for a
                                few years now, I would NOT run Xen in a production environment, though
                                I've seen plenty of people on the xen-users list who in fact DO run it
                                in production. VMWare's a different story, IMO.

                                BUT as for actual uses, schools and programmers: you could run
                                multiple OSs and test software written cross-platform without having
                                to maintain several systems or multi-booting. ISPs and Web Hosts: You
                                can sell customers private servers without having to actually have
                                bare metal servers... call it a mid-range price point between shared
                                hosting and dedicated servers. Customers get a dedicated server that
                                is cheaper than what they would pay for a bare metal dedicated server,
                                you get more customers and more sales with less cost and upkeep.

                                Testing, as was already mentioned is a good use too. Some banks use
                                it for various things. Companies could use it and provide employees
                                their own "system" by giving them what amounts to a thin client and
                                housing their "system" on a centralized host.

                                I would NOT run something mission critical like an app server or a
                                database server on a virtualized machine, but the lesser things could
                                be done that way.

                                The big key is cost... going back on the ISP example, I could buy 5
                                servers and sell 50 dedicated servers to customers using
                                virtualization, or I could by 50 1U servers, sell those, plus pay 50
                                servers worth of heating/cooling, electricity, etc...

                                Add virtualization to a single BladeCenter chassis w/ 14 blades, and
                                you've got a datacenter in a box, basically...

                                Not that I advocate either way, I have just seen more than a few
                                examples where it would be useful, but as I said, I would also be wary
                                of Xen in production environments, just my experience, and admittedly
                                that's a bit jaded; and I wouldn't run something huge and mission
                                critical on it either...

                                Then again, a lot can be said for VMWares virtual infrastructure too.

                                Cheers
                                Jeff
                              • Thad Floryan
                                ... Thank you for your article! I ve found numerous other related articles and will be experimenting with virtualization soon . :-)
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 13, 2009
                                  --- In redhat@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lane <sundowner225@...> wrote:
                                  > [...]
                                  > I would NOT run something mission critical like an app server or a
                                  > database server on a virtualized machine, but the lesser things could
                                  > be done that way.
                                  > [...]
                                  > Add virtualization to a single BladeCenter chassis w/ 14 blades, and
                                  > you've got a datacenter in a box, basically...
                                  > [...]
                                  > Not that I advocate either way, I have just seen more than a few
                                  > examples where it would be useful, but as I said, I would also be wary
                                  > of Xen in production environments, just my experience, and admittedly
                                  > that's a bit jaded; and I wouldn't run something huge and mission
                                  > critical on it either...
                                  > [...]

                                  Thank you for your article!

                                  I've found numerous other related articles and will be experimenting
                                  with virtualization "soon". :-)
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.