Cary Bielenberg wrote:
> My references to it being a pig to install is borne out of frustration,
> I didn't articulate my feelings well! What I was trying to say is that
> unless you are dedicated to learning the intricacies of the software it
> is a struggle to grasp & install.
Again, I can't
Karl Bowden wrote:
> able to fault it. Dont get me wrong. I still think Xen is the best
> solution for businesses, but with it's flakey 32bit support in ubuntu
> and lack of out-of-the-box support for nvidia gpus, although it runs
I should mention that KVM's "solution" to the Nvidia thing is to pa
I guess I'm going to pipe in on this too. I'd been a die hard fan of
VMware since I was a windows only guy (admittedly 9 years ago). But
since testing out Xen and KVM I have found place for virtualisation in
business use. VMware is a very nice polished product, but I have
always found installing VM
Daniel Mons wrote:
Cary Bielenberg wrote:
I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit &
polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd
machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the
sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almo
Cary Bielenberg wrote:
> I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit &
> polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd
> machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the
> sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:40 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote:
I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit
& polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd
machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the
sysadmins who
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:40 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote:
> I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit
> & polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd
> machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the
> sysadmins who have to multi sk
Owen Townend wrote:
2008/8/13 Senectus . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Gear wrote:
| If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in
| terms of functionality.
Paul,
Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x H
2008/8/13 Senectus . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Gear wrote:
>> | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in
>> | terms of functionality.
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Gear wrote:
| If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in
| terms of functionality.
Oh and I forgot to mention, where I work we ran some head-to-head tests
of ESX server versus Xen/QEmu (via RHEL5-AP).
http://www.stickfre
2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Paul Gear wrote:
> | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in
> | terms of functionality.
>
> Paul,
>
> Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Gear wrote:
| If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in
| terms of functionality.
Paul,
Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16
cores, 64GB RAM) with Xen/QEmu to virtualise a number of L
Cary Bielenberg wrote:
> I'm currently knocking up some virtual servers at work, I will be using
> Hardy x64 on HP DL585 servers (dual amd processors, 16Gb ram etc) I have
> used the free Vmware server 1.6/Hardy on other boxes but I fell that
> that performance leaves a lot to be desired. Today
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 20:07 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote:
> I'm currently knocking up some virtual servers at work, I will be using
> Hardy x64 on HP DL585 servers (dual amd processors, 16Gb ram etc) I have
> used the free Vmware server 1.6/Hardy on other boxes but I fell that
> that performance
I'm currently knocking up some virtual servers at work, I will be using
Hardy x64 on HP DL585 servers (dual amd processors, 16Gb ram etc) I have
used the free Vmware server 1.6/Hardy on other boxes but I fell that
that performance leaves a lot to be desired. Today I tried KVM but it
seems a pig
15 matches
Mail list logo
