I understand the temptation of "easy deployment". The con-s also have been outlined ad nauseam. So let me repeat this only once:
We should all assess this thoroughly before diving into it. What quality of data we expect from VMs? What is the real cost of *supporting* VMs? The main costs are not in the hardware or in deployment. They are in running the back-end and support. So far RIPE Atlas produces quite repeatable and comparable results even if stressed well beyond the design limits. This is a unique feature of RIPE Atlas. Is the per definition non-repeatable and comparable data from VMs worth the effort of support and back-end resources? My suspicion is that when we look beyond the "+1s" in favor of easy, almost cost-less, deployment we will find that it is not worth it. Also there will be much less incentive to deploy first rate anchors and probes when the second rate VMs are available? Why earn credits by making the effort to install real probes when credits can be earned in a much easier way? >From my personal, informal assessment I advise against supporting VMs. I recommend a thorough assessment of the data quality, the costs and the effects on RIPE Atlas as a whole before diving into soloutioneering. Daniel On 9.11.15 13:43 , Robert Kisteleki wrote: > Dear All, > > At the risk of assigning more work to myself than I anticipate: there's an > action item on me to come up with some thoughts and questions to the > community about the VM probes. For example: what virtualisation technology > would people prefer (as we cannot support all of them)? How would we manage > these (think of field-upgrades) and how to administer them (at the moment > it's easy, since we supply the whole device with keys and firmware). > > Regards, > Robert > > > On 2015-11-09 13:34, Stephan Wolf wrote: >> +2 for VM probe > >
