A British consulting company that specializes in server virtualization was so frustrated by the mismatch between general purpose x64-based servers and what the popular hypervisors from VMware and Citrix Systems required that it has rejigged itself into a hardware vendor pushing what it calls virtual machine appliances. Virtual …
Opportunity Knocks ...... and Smashes Windows to Smithereens
"The VMC appliances do not include the cost of the hypervisors, which you need to license from VMware or Citrix."
And if VMC also supplied/sponsored/edutained their own fleet of hypervisors, would they have complete and absolute control of the Real to Virtualisation Stack for Virtual Machinery Command and Control ...... and the likes of a VMware and a Citrix would be needing to purchase licenses to avail themselves of the performance hike which ..... well, the VMC appliance is really a SMARTer Cloud Crowd Controller, is it not?
And way out ahead Leading in Virgin Alien Territory ..... Virtual Team Terrain?
A question asked here of VMC for El Regers to know of the Heady State of Great Game Play Today ...... as IT Delivers Silent Hawkers with Super Stealthy Advanced Virtual Machine Ware for Global Operating Devices Use.
I have no idea....
.....what you just said, but....YAY!
interesting that there was no IBM for comparison, I wonder why? Probably because those 2 socket 3690's will smoke these boxes.
while I like the concept, I'm not too thrilled with the delivery/design. for one AMD.
I suspect their choice of AMD cores versus Intel cores may be linked to the ongoing "deep c-state" bug (or as Intel like to call it... "errata") which prevents cores waking up from their lowest power modes, pretty much excluding the Intel Nehalem and Westmere from any application where very high power-efficiency is a must (as far as my company goes).
See "specification Updates" http://www.intel.com/products/server/processor/xeonE7/
or the hypervisor companies view: http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX127395
Maybe IBM have found a way around this problem, if so, good on them!
VMC v IBM
The Virtual Machine Co see's their value proposition stack up really well against.Dell/HP. The VM capacity per unit of power per $ is excellent against these vendors. IBM have a higher performance offering but with prices to match!
Hope they stay independant
Trouble is with a UI on *two* popular API's they would seem quite a nice morsel for one of their competitors like HP or Dell.
I hope they have they (and their backers, who usually have the last say in these things) have the courage to stay independent and grow as a business in their *own* right and not sell up to the first player who flashes a bit of cash their way.
*Never* fall for the old "You're a *minor* inconvenience to us and so here's a small fortune, insignificant British company so go away and leave your IP on the way out."
emc = vmc ?
hmmm name change needed me thinks, those corporate procurement types might get confused by these similar name shenanigans. Wo betide someone puts to tender and gets vmc instead. Resellers love confusing the customer, here it is on a plate.
I can tell you...
that these are built/tested to the highest quality.
I should know! ;-)
No Mention of UCS?
Given that a UCS B250 or C250 can hit 384 GB using 8GB Chips , where are they unique again ?
I'd suggest they post again when they have published VMMark results. x86 Virtual Hosts are a commodity product - unless they can show the best Performance/Cost ratio , I would imagine this is one orange box that wont be in every datacenter.
- SMASH the Bash bug! Red Hat, Apple scramble for patch batches
- A BENDY iPhone 6, you say? Pah, warp claims are bent out of shape: Consumer Reports
- eXpat Files 'Could we please not have naked developers running around the office BEFORE 10pm?'
- CoTW Emma Watson should SHUT UP, all this abuse is HER OWN FAULT
- Vulture at the Wheel Renault Twingo: Small, sporty(ish), safe ... and it's a BACK-ENDER