Red Hat's commercial implementation of its open-source KVM hypervisor, Enterprise Virtualization 2.1 (RHEV) is just four months old, but changes in server hardware and end users' desire to run fatter virtual machines has compelled Red Hat to kick out another release. The beta testing program for RHEV 2.2 opened up Monday, and …
THIS is why I love Redhat so much. Is there another distro shop committing so much effort to professional tools as this example? Is there a reason to go backwards with Debian? Really, give me an advantage? The more flavors of linux I try, the more I appreciate Redhat. Go ahead, call me fanboy, polesmoker, etc. Still can't say yours is bigger.
I can't help but think that when numbers like this are tossed about they are tossed about just for marketing, and not because the system can actually effectively scale to those levels. Case in point, VMware claims they could of enabled 8-way SMP in ESX 3.5 (apparently you can now just with some undocumented feature), but the hypervisor wasn't efficient enough in handling 8-way VMs in 3.5 that they didn't want to turn it on, it wasn't worth the overhead, results wouldn't of been up to par.
You can see in this PDF vmware's own claims to scalability:
On page 8 they mention a 8-way VM can achieve 85% of native performance, I'd be willing to bet if they put out 16-way it'd probably drop to something like 60-70%. Page 55 shows SQL performance physical vs virtual on different # of vCPUs. You can see the gap increase significantly the more vCPUs are running.
Also find it difficult to believe that the linux cpu scheduler itself is efficient enough to handle so many cores. Traditionally it has not, sure you could run a lot but that doesn't equate to near linear performance improvement with more cores. I'm a long time linux fan but can acknowledge it's limitations. I haven't seen numbers posted recently perhaps it has improved exponentially in the past few years, if someone has some data I'd be interested in seeing it. Linux seems to have always been about horizontal scaling, rather than vertical(beyond say 8 CPUs).
OS supplier ready to support *next* generation of hardware
Rather than just hammering the current generation into the ground by bloating up.
Good grief. Apps could even get faster *above* the increase in the number of cores.
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why