Uh-oh. All the server makers are starting to talk about total cost of ownership (TCO) again. And that usually means they are running out of the normal bang for the buck arguments they use to peddle products. Such was the case as Dell raised the curtain a few inches in a webcast today on its impending lineup of servers based on …
Nehalem the Mighty
Nehalem .. sounds like a boss mob in World of Warcraft.
"I shall smite you foolish mortals unless you submit to the power of my awsome mind!"
9 down to one is great until it fails
No-one is going to compress 9 servers doww to one! 9 down to two each one of which is capable of taking the nine VMs if one physical server fails, maybe, but not nine down to one.
And if we must talk TCO again, what about the TCO of the new hardware, compared to a fully-depreciated 9 old boxes? What about the cost ot the VMWare or equivalent? Or the new skills required and the increased salaries of these increased-skills staff? Or the maintenance impact when 9 business services go down simultaneously because a VMWare patch needs applying?
Don't believe the hype!
No Problems Here
9 VMS on each Server Blade - no problem. If you lose track of one of the servers just crank up another VM.
But one question --- doesn't this mean that all 9 servers have to agree to shut down gracefully to do some kinds of maintenance? Are these windows servers?