> On 10 Nov 2015, at 12:20, Wilfried Woeber <woe...@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote: > > > On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote: > >> ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. >> What do you think about this ? > > I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more > capable and more stable than the candy probes. Messing around with that > concept should not be done, imho. > >> Just my 2 cents .-) > > ...same here :-) > > Wilfried > > PS: I myself do see the beauty of the idea to virtualize the (candy-)probes, > but I have - already a while ago - been convinced that the data generated > by them should *not* be mixed in with the data from those under full NCC > control. And whether those VM probes should even be catalogued by the NCC > is another open question.
After having lived and still work in a Solaris physical metal land, I took onboard the virtual machine world for a webservice/emailservice. The virtual world is cheaper in long run. However does require a vm/ov image. I think it is important cloud as such as machines are monitored and I thought vm probe would for great for that Colin
