[ale] Virtualization

[Geoffrey]

Jim Kinney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Christopher Fowler
> <cfowler at outpostsentinel.com> wrote:
> 
>> This is my experience as well.  I think many companies look at
>> virtualization as a way to save
>> money on hardware.
> 
> Virtualization seems like a cool toy. But when I see a business use
> many virtualized machines for daily processes, mission critical
> services, etc, it just screams "single point of failure with massive
> consequences".

Clustered hardware with virtual on top.  I've got a client who has 8 
clustered boxes with 10+ virtuals on top of that.  One box fails, no 
problem.

> It also speaks volumes about the overall architecture and design of
> the processes in use that they require multiple machines for load that
> then get virtualized to save money on hardware.
> 
> ?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Huh?!? WHA?!?!?
> 
> Picture this scenario: Product FOO is composed of database, app logic,
> and UI frontend. The designers all insist that their portion requires
> an independent machine to avoid resource conflicts. So 3 VMs get built
> thus placing all the parts on the same machine with even higher
> overhead than if they were on a single, physical machine. Management
> viewpoint is they don't have a new chunk of hardware to buy for this
> process. While true, they did have to buy a HONKIN' box(s) for the vm
> server.
> 
> It always seemed to me that virtualization is a good thing for test
> environments and extremely light loads that are not mission critical.
> But the ideal use in a mission critical environment is as a backup
> environment for the real hardware.


-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin