[ale] Getting rid of VMware

[Tod Fassl]

If your database server doesn't need all 24 cores, then just run your 
print server on there too. Make it your file server, your authentication 
server, your DNS server, your DHCP server, your NTP server, and while 
you're at it, your condor central manager too. After all, that is 
*exactly* what you are doing by running all those virtual machines on 
there. Only thing is you're adding a $10K licensing fee and a whole lot 
of other headaches on top of it.


If a single 24-core machine can handle all the stuff I am running on 
those virtual machines, why in the world would I pay VMWare an extra 
$10K instead of just running them on a bare metal Linux server? The 
principle here is that hardware is cheaper than staff time -- which is 
*exactly* my point! I don't want to have to dick around with VMWare when 
Linux does everything I need it to do.


On 3/12/21 11:15 AM, DJ-Pfulio via Ale wrote:
> On 3/12/21 11:47 AM, Tod Fassl via Ale wrote:
>> Now, running your vm on someone else's cluster -- that I can
>> understand. But running your own? No, that's dumb.
> Not if your server has 24 cores and the DBMS only needs 2 to work
> fast.
> More cores and more RAM doesn't always translate to faster
> results.
>
> In a business, there is a trade off in having optimal use for HW.
> If the DBMS is just 5% slower, but you can get 10 more systems
> on the same HW for $0, that would be a huge win most places.
>
> I see people with 16-core systems who decide to run a 16-core VM
> with 32G of RAM because they can. Then we have them explain their
> workload and suggest a 4 vCPU and 8GB RAM VM.  Crazy, but it runs
> faster.
> With Linux, it is usually best to begin with 1-2 vCPUs and only
> scale up when you know it is actually necessary.
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo