David Woolley wrote: > My argument is that these aren't or shouldn't be important for servers.
My ( and other posters ) opinion is that this is no longer the case. The trusty server chugging along at constant speed never getting cold never getting up a heat is a beast of the past, extinct when the currently running oned ( already well aged ) do their last shutdown. > >> The current trend seems to be dedicated boxes >> or myriads of "VM-boxes" on a mainframe which depends heavily >> on a VM-box being suspended when it is idle. > > > That only requires the 1970s (or earlier) HLT technology and > multi-tasking friendly applications; generally Unix applications are > friendly but some Windows applications, particularly from five or more > years ago, aren't (although they tend to be desk top ones). The "Collocation Dedicacted Server" and VM people are very adamant about stopping VMs or taking a "real" machine as far as possible into powerdown when the payload app is idle. ntp is not an app but infrastructure in this context. > Also, as I understand it, enterprise (i.e. expensive) virtualisation > software can move running guests between hosts, so, whilst that would be Yes , XEN forex provides "seamless" migration across a network of hosts ( though there is not much connection to expensive, most Linux Distributions provide packages to run VM hosts/guests ) > rather bad for timing critical applications, one imagines the best power > management strategy is to concentrate the active systems on a few hosts > and completely power down any others. RealTime and migration don't seem to be made for mariage, or? uwe _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
