Nope, no astroturf here, just a happy network admin. :)

Juniper is seriously that awesome. They put a ton of thought into their stuff, and it makes my life that much easier.

Too bad I can't mod "+1 Fuck Yes." Juniper rocks.

It's amazing how content you are with ignorance. I'll just go ahead and add you to my "Never met a smart Australian in my life" list and leave it at that.

Ok. Let me lay this out for you, since you're apparently a dunce who can't use google.

How live migration works:
1. Snapshot system memory, live, while the system is running.
2. Transmit snapshot to shared storage.
3. After transmit, load snapshot into RAM on second host.
4. Suspend VM.
5. Send deltas of RAM, to bring second host up to date.
6. Resume VM.
7. Gratuitously ARP out so the switches know where the machine is.

The guest is never shut down. It is never aware it has even been suspended. As far as it, and clients are aware, it just experienced additional network latency for about 1/10th of a second between 4 and 6. During that time, its entire state was transferred to different physical hardware. Now, in many cases, this requires identical, or similar CPUs, but that's trivial.

It's not that complex, and if you were willing to do a bit of research, you'd avoid making yourself look like a total dunce.

I like how you assume I'm a Microsoft shill just because I know what Hyper-V is. You see, I do manage datacenters for a living. My virtualization, however, is entirely XenServer, so, hey, again on the assumptions? See, your problem is that you talk authoritatively on subjects you openly admit you know nothing about.

In a matter of about 1/10th of a second, you can suspend a VM, migrate its state to another host, resume it, gratuitously arp, and thanks to the fault-tolerant design of TCP, things just continue working. If you knew anything at all about networking you'd understand this.

Instead of being a dumbass and saying "Not possible, no way!" why don't you go install XenServer on two boxes, pool them, and see it for yourself? Or, how about simply not opening your mouth on a subject you yourself admit you know nothing about?

Oh hey, look, let me Google this one for you too:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hyper-V

See, this is part of Windows Server, which you install on your own hardware, just like XenServer, or VMware, or well, any other operating system. It's not a hosted platform that you can't control that runs somewhere else.

While I have you here, I really would like to know two things:
1. What the fuck are you smoking?
2. Can I have some? Must be some good shit.

Uhhhhh?

To put it very clearly: No. They're not flipping from one guest to another. The same guest, moving from one physical piece of hardware to another, without any interruption at all. Why this is mind boggling to you is beyond me - it's fairly simple, actually, once you realize that we have shared storage (y'know, logical volumes you can access from more than one machine - is that equally incredible?) and very fast network links...

Since you're so lazy: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=live+migration

And how exactly do you propose he gets that subdomain from whoever owns last.*? Pretty sure that if you just randomly email whoever owns a domain and say "Hay dood I want subdomain!!!!!111!1one" it won't work, and you certainly can't just go to a registrar and register a subdomain of someone else's domain...

OWA 2010 may as well have been a complete rewrite as far as I'm concerned. It's an incredible difference from 2007. I much prefer it to GMail's interface, and that's running in Chrome - yep, they made OWA fully cross browser with all the fancy features as well. About damn time.

Well, yeah, but that still can fall under 3 seconds with Google. :P

Uhhhh? The company's called Mojang. Scrolls is another game they're working on. 3 seconds with Google would have told you that and spared you however long you wasted writing that up. :|

Works fine at 5970x1080 for me. \o/

Sounds like a poorly thought out deployment to me. I used to manage an Exchange deployment with eh, 40,000 users, maybe 50,000? Everything was nearly instantaneous. Hell, all of those clients hit the 16 backend mailbox servers (each with a few Dell MD1000s hanging off of them) through one client access server (they were active/passive failover) with only 4 gigs of RAM. Exchange's requirements aren't nearly as insane as people like to make them out to be, but like anything involving tons of data and many users, it's only going to be as good as your backing storage, which is your weakest link.

(1 horsu) Post pointing out the typo "horsu"