> VMware would be nice (though I have no experience with GX, I imagine its > better than the consumer stuff ;).
We run VMWare here at TrySybase, and have for a couple of years. All our demos and such run in VMs (and we have numerous DBs, web servers, app servers, etc. etc. running on top.) VMWare works nicely for demos where there isn't continual usage/load. This posting just brought some things back into memory. We tried running a full Gump on GSX (on an 'ok' box, not great) and we basically brought VMWare down. This is probably the only time we've seen VMWare not act like a true machine (other than this it has been exceptionally stable). [Don't forget, Gump has had it's sick days & used way too many resources, as we know.] I can get details of exactly what occured (Robert Meredith, a lurker on infr@) looked into it. Basiclly thought, Gump pushed GSX too hard for resources. Virtual Machines are great for flexibility, for sharing, but they can't compete with raw machines. Don't forget, GSX still resides on top of the operating system (like VMWAre Workstation does) so all requests from VMs have to get passed through the original operating system. Memory is the *main* thing that VMWAre go on and on and on about needing gobs of. They openly state that VMs are not great for things like database that use a lot of resources. We moved from GSX (served us well) to ESX about 6 months ago, and that is truly sweet. ESX is based on a Linux Kernal and has no OS sitting between it and the box's hardware. Things run very very nicely, and we are getting close to 50 VMs on our box (30 before we notice any degradation). Still, it is a fine balance. That all said, I'd not discount doing this, just relaying this experience. regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
