![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> That's an... interesting move. Still, I guess if you have 100 virtual
>> servers and they all run Windows, you still need 100 server licenses.
>
> Yup. But you'd also need 100 licences if you had 100 seperate physical
> servers, so it kinda works out cheaper to buy a single large server and
> virtualise several 'servers' onto one where possible. Save on power,
> cooling, space in the server room, probably on hardware.
In other words, a company that wouldn't buy 100 physical servers might
consider running 100 virtual servers - so M$ still get their cheque.
> Plus most large
> companies will probably have site-licences so they don't worry about
> buying individual licences like you or I would.
How exactly does that work? I know how I *thought* it worked, but
apparently I'm wrong; I heard one of our head IT guys complaining that
we actually have more Server 2003 Enterprise installations running than
we're "supposed to".
>> However, since it appears that you can actually run real software at
>> almost native speeds, suddenly it becomes far more interesting... ;-)
>
> Most and almost.
> I know that currently SQL Server isn't supported for production usage on
> any form of virtual machine. It may change in the upcoming months with
> HyperV.
"Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
It might be that it *works* perfectly well, but the testing department
haven't assured themselves fully about it yet, so they don't want to
spend time supporting it until they have.
(Theoretically *every* application should work... depending on how well
the VM works anyway.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48bbb6e7$1@news.povray.org...
>> Plus most large companies will probably have site-licences so they don't
>> worry about buying individual licences like you or I would.
>
> How exactly does that work? I know how I *thought* it worked, but
> apparently I'm wrong; I heard one of our head IT guys complaining that we
> actually have more Server 2003 Enterprise installations running than we're
> "supposed to".
Licencing's not my specialty. Sounds like you have a certain number of
licences and you have more servers than that.
A previous company I worked for had a site-wide licence for certain apps.
Meant they could install as many as they liked and still paid a fixed amount
every year (support/upgrade contract). It's expensive for smaller companies,
but as the number of PCs increase, it becomes more reasonable than paying
for each one.
I don't know if it's still an option. As I said, I don't do licencing if I
can help it.
>> Most and almost.
>> I know that currently SQL Server isn't supported for production usage on
>> any form of virtual machine. It may change in the upcoming months with
>> HyperV.
>
> "Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
>
> It might be that it *works* perfectly well, but the testing department
> haven't assured themselves fully about it yet, so they don't want to spend
> time supporting it until they have.
Indeed. The problem with multiple SQL instances in VMs is IO. You can
allocate CPUs and memory to specific VMs, but there's still a single IO
channel, and SQL database tend to be IO bound more often than CPU or memory.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> How exactly does that work? I know how I *thought* it worked, but
>> apparently I'm wrong; I heard one of our head IT guys complaining that
>> we actually have more Server 2003 Enterprise installations running
>> than we're "supposed to".
>
> Licencing's not my specialty. Sounds like you have a certain number of
> licences and you have more servers than that.
> A previous company I worked for had a site-wide licence for certain
> apps. Meant they could install as many as they liked and still paid a
> fixed amount every year (support/upgrade contract). It's expensive for
> smaller companies, but as the number of PCs increase, it becomes more
> reasonable than paying for each one.
Right. Well we definitely have a company-wide license for Windows XP,
Office 2003, and a few other bits. I *thought* we had a company-wide
license for all the products we've licenced, but perhaps not?
> I don't know if it's still an option. As I said, I don't do licencing if
> I can help it.
Amen! But some of us don't have that luxury. :-S
>> "Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
>
> Indeed. The problem with multiple SQL instances in VMs is IO. You can
> allocate CPUs and memory to specific VMs, but there's still a single IO
> channel, and SQL database tend to be IO bound more often than CPU or
> memory.
Yeah, database engines by definition are I/O hungry (and memory hungry
if you want to cache some of that rather than reread it a zillion
times). Depending on what you're doing it can be CPU-heavy too, but
mainly just I/O.
I'm sure it'll *work*, but how fast...? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
>
> But surely if you're going to run a guest OS on the physical host CPU,
> the host CPU would need to have hardware support for enforcing the host
> seperation?
>
There's two ways to do it. The other one needs hardware virtualization
support (practically any C2D+ and X2+ -processors do have it nowadays)
and the other one uses somekind of simulation (dunno for sure how - but
ie. Xen and Linux with slightly modified kernel can do this without
mentionable powerloss).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxt net invalid
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> That's apparently a bad idea. The VM would have different hardware than your
> real machine. It's like taking the HD off and booting it on a machine with
> completely different CPU, motherboard, network card, graphics card...
>
> At least Windows would pop up a dozen "new hardware detected" messages :)
>
But that's Windows ;). With Linux, you can compile different kernel for
the VM/emu and ie. create another X.org -config file and use it with the
VM/emu.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxt net invalid
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
>> VMWare's ESXi is free now, though that's a server-level product, not
Isn't ESXi a hypervisor like Xen? Meaning that it kind of runs even
under the main-OS, not on it.
>
> Until yesterday, the only products I'd heard of where Bochs (only runs
> on Linux) and VMware (AFAIK that's extremely expensive). Oh, and doesn't
VMWare has several tools available free of cost. Check the website ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxt net invalid
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> Presumably that requires *very* specialised hardware though?
Yes, but nowadays it's built into all the CPUs already. You couldn't do
something like this on, say, a 68000 or an 8086.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> I've heard of plenty of VMs that run on Linux, but I wasn't aware that
> any free ones existed for Windoze.
Go to microsoft.com and do a search. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> the emulated CPU to be maybe 1,000,000x slower than the real one,
How many machine instructions do you think it takes to execute an
interpreter for a machine instruction? A hundred maybe, but a million?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Gail wrote:
> Yup. But you'd also need 100 licences if you had 100 seperate physical
> servers, so it kinda works out cheaper to buy a single large server and
> virtualise several 'servers' onto one where possible.
A good mainframe these days will run 30,000 images without much problem.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |