Do you think I could load-balance web requests successfully off of ~8 virtual webservers? My issue is, since vCPU VMs seem to behave... erratically... 32 cores doesn't help me much over the 8 I have now, unless I have a lot more VMs running
So what I'm really considering is vSphere Hypervisor based on VMware ESXi
What is the difference between VMware vSphere Hypervisor and VMware Server? Both VMware vSphere Hypervisor and VMware Server are available for free. However, VMware vSphere Hypervisor is the recommended free solution for customers looking to get started with VMware virtualization. vSphere Hypervisor is an enterprise-class virtualization solution that offers the bare-metal architecture for near-native performance, features like memory overcommit to increase consolidation ratios and a cluster file system for managing virtual machine files on shared storage. VMware Server, on the other…
@Warner to address your question of why 8 VM webservers -- I'm trying to give additional CPU power because many sites are PHP-heavy. So 8 was to utilize 8 cores, because with VMWare Server I can't reliably have more than one vCPU per VM. But you guys are saying this limitation doesn't apply with Xen?
Could I reliably have 2 Xen webserver VMs with 4 vCPUs on a physical server with 32 cores?
Suggestions for a good virtualisation solution that doesn't require VT extensions on the server? I just installed Hyper-V on an old Dell 1850 and (annoyingly) it installs and lets you create a VM but not start any VMs because there's no VT extensions on the server.
@Warner Our CEO is against buying, our datacenter of choice (who are really, really great) is in another state. We've always gotten managed dedicated hardware so upgrades and hardware maintaince is covered
If we bought commodity boxes not only would that be a large upfront investment (we're a small business) but it also means when they break I'd have to go out there to fix em -- or find a local datacenter, where I'd still have to go fix em :-)
@RichardGadsden Yeah VMWare Server doesn't require VT extensions
@KyleBrandt WHat I could do would be like 3 less powerful dedicated servers
@Warner: I'm still up in the air on the Friday Linuxfest date (depends where I get with work today), but I'm definitely in for Saturday. I need to sit down with the talk list and see what I'm interested in seeing.
I'll weigh-in on the virtualization debate a bit. In general, I'm not positive on the idea of creating single points of failure by piling a bunch of production infrastructure on a few boxes. OTOH, having too many physical boxes is just multiplying your odds of failure, too. I am of the VMware "religion", and the ESXi hypervisor (whatever they're calling it this week) is very similar to the ESX hypervisor (a lighter embedded Linux OS runs as the "service console"
as opposed to the full-blown RHEL variant that ESX uses).
ESXi being no-cost means that it can sneak into a lot of low-hanging-fruit situations where ESX would be too expensive. If the application doesn't need the VMware HA functionality often ESXi can be a good fit.
ESXi "free", that is. You can add HA features to ESXi for money, too.
In situations where you've got "utility" boxes that vendors demand be separate OS installs a virtualization infrastructure can result in better utilization of the physical hardware, and lower cooling and electricity costs.
Going overboard, though, with the attitude of "everything must be virtual" for the sake of virtualization is, like any "tech for tech's sake" argument, stupid. If it makes business sense to virtualize, then do it.
The free version, if memory serves, is limited to 4 physical sockets and 6 cores per socket.
Probably not, though. Having some amount of support is worth it.
Yeah-- that 6 core per CPU, 4 sockets is the current limit on the free version. The physical limit, assuming the highest-end license ("Enterprise Plus"... shiny... gold...) is 12 cores per socket and 128 logical CPUs per host.
My business case for virtualization is to pack more linux configs onto a single box, that is, mixing Ubuntu and CentOS, separating SVN server from production web hosting, etc. Our budget doesn't allow for a separate physical server for each application, nor would some take advantage of the resources
A major concern is the web hosting software we use (either cPanel or Virtualmin) -- both take complete control over the linux install they're on and if you don't do things their way, things break -- badly
So I let cPanel do what it does and create separate VMs which I can fine-tune the configs on
@EvanAnderson looking forward to meeting you. Have all the swag ready for distribution, have a few ideas that I'll try to line up too. Bringing a camera. I will definitely be there on Friday and Saturday.
My current disaster is an ADSL modem router. I have it in bridge mode because I couldn't stand rebooting it twice a day. Now the Linux box I have it connected to to dial and route is giving problems with SSL (HTTPS connections usually fail). And I attribute it to the crappy router
gotcha ... well you can ask your privider for a modem only, and go with the Small Biz stuff, or if you can swing it an 800 Series ISR ... or it looks like the 500 Series secure router is also capable of using an xDSL WIC