[ale] Virtualization

[Robert L. Harris]

   I am actually running 2 VM servers (2proc, 8 cores total and 32Gigs 
of RAM) which host
19 virtual servers.  This is a mix of 12 production level boxes and 7 
dev/test (web, code, etc).
Cost of hardware, approximately $5500 each.

   The boss's know that in our current situation if we lose one of the 
hosts some of the dev boxes
will likely be off line until the hardware is fixed or replaced (24x7x4 
support).  When we get a
third machine that will be mitigated as well.

   This has let me consolidate a full rack, over power allowances, into 
about 1/3 of a rack well
under power.  In addition I can now put my physical console on the 7 or 
so physical pieces of
hardware and I have virtual consoles for all my VM's without having to 
buy and wire in a
new console server even though we have added 6 'servers' in the last 8 
months.

   We do have a couple processes that can go insane and consume massive 
amounts of CPU
and RAM due to improper user activity.  When that happened on bare 
hardware we would have
instances the hardware had to be hard rebooted.  One of my largest 
concerns was this behavior
could impact the other VM's but it hasn't.  One machine last week went 
to the wall completely.
I was able to Log into the console, verify no other VM's were impacted 
then do some debugging
console logging real quick before hitting the virtual reboot button to 
restore service.

   I won't VM a database or my nagios server but at this point 
everything else in my environment
has been VM'd and it's working great.

Robert


On 2/25/09 6:01 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
> 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.
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 

:wq!
====================================================================
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                          @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu
DISCLAIMER:
       These are MY OPINIONS             With Dreams To Be A King,
        ALONE.  I speak for              First One Should Be A Man
        no-one else.                       - Manowar