|
Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
...
> I thought you had 84 virtual machines. Clearly I don't know
> what you have.
>
> What is the hardware running these 84 machines (number CPUs,
> number NICs etc)? How many virtual instances are
> realservers? Why don't you just have a small number of
> realservers, each one getting a larger share of the
> resources rather than a large number of realservers, each of
> which gets a small fraction of the resources?
>
> Thanks Joe
>
>
Hi Joe,
If I might ring in for a moment. Did you get a chance to attend the
OpenVZ session? Hopefully they explained how virtual servers (VE's) are
different from VM's. VE's are basically just kernel-based supercharged
chroot environments. The all share the same running kernel. That is why
Rio was saying that you don't have the overhead of 84 separate running
kernels. VE hosts are just huge schedulers for the apps that run inside
the VE's. There is very little wasted resources. You can get many many
more VE's on a host that you can VM's. And that is why I think in the
future there will be about a 50-50 breakdown between the VE approach to
virtualization compared to the VM approach. To the outside you cannot
tell the difference between a VE and a VM. On the network they both
perform the same.
Gerry
|
