| 1 |
On Sunday 31 May 2009 01:27:07 Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Added to that, my employer is an ISP and not shy with budgets, so a |
| 3 |
> > purchase order for new hardware in a case like this will not raise any |
| 4 |
> > eyebrows. For me, it's a low level of risk high impact scenario and the $ |
| 5 |
> > cost is low. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > In a budget-constrained environment, it would obviously work very |
| 8 |
> > differently |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Well, I am in a very cost constrained environment I'm afraid. Good advice |
| 11 |
> given here - I am now thinking that a virtual server is the next stage. |
| 12 |
> Any idea how it would run on a single CPU machine - or must we bite the |
| 13 |
> bullet and go for some multicore monster? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
virtualization can give surprisingly pleasant performance figures. It's VASTLY |
| 16 |
improved since vmware still caught on, and web sites don't necessarily have to |
| 17 |
be resource hogs. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So what I would do is get your hands on a spare machine somewhere (you might |
| 20 |
need to get creative here...) and test out all the well-known virtualization |
| 21 |
technologies (vmware-server, virtualbox, kvm, qemu). My experience has been |
| 22 |
that as long as you don't run X on the hosts or guests, performance is good. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you are already running out of steam on a single-cpu machine, then you'd |
| 25 |
need an upgrade anyway and no amount of magic sauce technology can change that |
| 26 |
- it takes budget ;-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives