<quote sender="Junhao"> > Dear all, > > Since we are on the topic of virtualisation, I'm just curious what's > everyone's take on virtualisation of hardware/servers versus not having > a single point of failure (i.e. when the main server goes down, > everything goes down with it). > > I'm presently considering setting up a secondary system which > automatically kicks in if/when the primary system goes down. But this > seems counter to the argument that virtualisation is a way to > consolidate resources, no?
You can consolidiate resources, and at the same time provide redundancy. Say, you consolidated 5 machines into 1 machine with 5 guests vm. You can also setup another machine with the same 5 guests, and cluster it. This way, you can still consolidate resources by using less hardware, and still get to cluster them the same way you would do with more hardware. Some virtualization technologies even allow you to migrate a guest vm from one possibly broken hardware to another without shutting down. Eugene _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
