On 23/06/2012 13:20, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
it is already enormous overshoot in hardware specs. And i do not really catch why you have "4 in parallel" servers. And finally i cannot understand this dividing of servers just to merging it back using VMWare.
because it is a big difference if you have anything in a single machine or splittet in virtual machines - you can move them at runtime to different hosts and if you run out of ressources
ok - for me it is just likes. You have higher change to have the need to move at the first place doing this :)
Actually, I'm a huge buyer of "virtualisation". There is *no other* way that people should be running their servers right now... (hand waving sweeping generalisation - obviously add context, etc, before taking literally).
There are various types of virtualisation solution and they have pros and cons, but I think there is close to zero reason not to use some kind of virtualisation option for all new deployments. Probably he is using something clever like vmware esx - I like the theory there where you can literally fail over a running machine to new hardware, without even stopping it running, very neat. I personally use linux-vservers which are almost identical to running on bare metal server (it's kind of a fancy form of chroot), this means I don't have commercial grade failover, but it only takes 5-15 seconds to "reboot" each container, so that's an acceptable downtime for my requirements.
Good luck!
Ed W