While x86 server virtualization is now widely accepted as an important part of IT activity looking forward, the results of our recent workshop poll of Reg readers suggests that it is still early days when it comes to implementation. As with all online polls, the respondents (301 for this one) were ‘self-selecting’, which means …
What what was so wrong with the Motorola 68nnn processors? They had much more umph than the Intel chip! An ARM is better than an Intel chip!
Good to know that virtualization seems to be delivering on this particular point on the majority. I'm guessing this is because most VMs will still be running Windows Server 2003 or non windows stuff. The required RAM for even a lightly used Server 2008 is a bit high...
Fewer VMs on UNIX boxes?
"The first cause that springs to mind concerns the traditional dependencies that have existed between applications and the platforms upon which they sit. A familiar challenge is how each application requires the underlying systems stack to be configured in a particular way, which is typically different to other applications."
I think this --^ is also the reason why the x86 use of VMs is higher than the "proprietary UNIX" use -- I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general UNIX apps interact with the underlying OS cleanly, they don't require OS modifications, and have other mechanisms (chroot jails and such) to seperate the per-app environment if needed without resorting to an entire OS for each.
Anyway, I find virtualization to be an interesting topic, keep up the good articles on it!
- JLaw, Kate Upton EXPOSED in celeb nude pics hack
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter declines to deny JLaw tweet scrubdown after alleged iCloud NUDE PHOTOS hack