People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
Server consolidation could mean more work
Virtual nightmares
Fri Mar 06 2009, 13:43
VIRTUALISED COMPUTER NETWORKS could be as hard to manage as the real thing, according to beancounters at IDC.
Analyst Michelle Bailey said that 40 percent of IT managers surveyed wanted to save cash by moving to virtualisation. But the average number of virtual machines per server is only five, with that number rising to eight by 2012 and "all of them still need to be managed."
Bailey warned that tools to do this are not keeping pace and the virtualisation market could stall as a result. µ
L'Inq
Internet News
Share this:
Share
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll
This whole virtualization rigmarole only seems necessary for Windows servers. Why can’t you run multiple apps on the same server? Because with the typical (un)reliability of Dimdows apps, you never know whose fault it is if something goes wrong.
Unix/Linux servers seem quite capable of fulfilling multiple roles at once, without the risk of hiccups and interference. Is it because Unix/Linux apps are not written by complete idiots?
Hi,
We are an IT organization, who have outsourced our total IT environment to a 3rd party host(how stupid is that?) EDB Partners Norway...
This nightmare began last year and this gets more and more serious by the day!
We have some 300 servers we have outsourced and most of them run as virtuals. There has not been a day, i really mean that, not a single day passed for almost an year without something goes wrong because these servers are running on virtuals.. some imbasils!
For heavens sake the hardware is cheap as peanuts.. why wast time and energy on problem solving on ESX, ACE, etc when one can buy a hardware device.
-- I was one of those who was blinded by the thought of virtual was the way of tomorrow. well i still say that.. but my openion on virtual tech only good for testing an environment.. and less complex networks.. say if one have 3-10 pc../servers.
Otherwise DO NOT FALL FOR ANY PIT HOLES LIKE VIRTUALS.. OR EDB PARTNERS.. (these guys really suck)
"VMs per host? I have tens of customers and the average is about 20 VMs on a dual-socket 8 core 48GB RAM host with Vmware ESX."
You're assuming that the average server is dual socket and has anywhere near 48GB ram.
For a cheap server with 8GB ram and 1TB space, you'd only want to run 5 or so at 768MB ram each and you're full.
What you're talking about is SERIOUS virtualisation, and not everyone's that serious yet, but everyone IS doing it with junk servers lying around, cramming on as many as the ram limit will allow.
This was always going to be as difficult to maintain. More difficult, in fact, since any hypervisor also needs an eye kept on it. The idea was to lower hardware costs, not to make it easier for the Must Consult Someone Experienceds.
5 VMs per host? I have tens of customers and the average is about 20 VMs on a dual-socket 8 core 48GB RAM host with Vmware ESX...all running Windows 2003 / 2008 Servers and various apps. By mid summer with Nehalem EP and 72GB of RAM we will be running 30-35 on average...
Network management could be as hard as the real thing? It is the real thing ;-)
I get more than eight now. with ESX I get along fine with
120 vms
3 boxes Dual Quads 24 CPUs
96 GB ram
1 SATA SAN