[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Mark Evans wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Steven Coté wrote: > > >> It's definitely better to keep services on separate machines, but if >> paring down to a single physical box is what you have to do, then maybe >> virtualisation is the way to go. >> >> Without knowing why the boss wants to get rid of the other fileserver, >> it's hard to know if that will solve your problem, but it's definitely >> worth looking at. >> >> By doing this, you could set up 3 different virtual machines, one for >> the intranet, one for the fileserver and one for the app server. Each >> would appear to be a completely different computer, but they all share >> the same physical resources. >> > > This is important to remember. The virtual machines are all sharing the > same CPU, memory bandwidth, network bandwidth, disk bandwidth, etc of > the actual machine. > The actual OS of the machine is also going to take a share of machines > resources. If more than one of the VMs is likely to make intensive use > of the same resource then things can come unstuck. As well it being > quite possible that a single machine powerful enough would be more > expensive than 3 machines speced appropriatly. > > Maybe one way around this would be to use VMWare ESXi server which includes it's own bare bones OS (Linux based I believe). It's not Free as in freedom and you'd need supported hardware but it might ease things, especially when used with a Virtulisation capable processor (such as any AMD AM2 processor or the Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad/Core i7). Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html