|
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 14:00, Gerry Reno wrote:
> 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.
excellent description! there is need for both types of virtualization. we
mostly use the VE concept but there are a few instances where we have had to
virtualize hardware, and for that we have one machine controlled by ESX
server. presently we only have two virtual machines running on it so, in our
case, VE is the most chosen.
>
> Gerry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
--
Rio
|
