Tue Feb 22 08:51:49 PST 2005
Virtualization was a big buzzword at LinuxWorld,
and I'm starting to suspect it's a load of crap.
Why would you partition a big expensive server into
the equivalent of several small cheap servers that
add up to a fraction of the big server's price?
And why would you license a fancy virtualization
layer when you could just buy blade servers?
Real or virtual, you still need to manage the servers
-- so why not just put in good management software
(including power management, which you really need for
big blade installations) and skip the virtualization
Who cares about the percentage of utilization
of a resource that's really cheap? Would you
virtualize all the staplers at the company because
they have <1% utilization? No, that would be dumb.
They're staplers. You can get more for less money
and less hassle than trying to virtualize them.
I can see one use for virtualization -- linode.com
style virtual hosts where the _customers_ manage all
those virtual servers and you actually get paid for
each one -- but, really, isn't the virtualization
frenzy just a smokescreen to try to put some profits
back into the generic server/generic OS market?
More information about the linux-elitists