Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
You put your virtualization on the new machines not on the hand-me-down stuff, silly. Your old machines weren't speced for them.
No, technically they weren't. But the specs fit the need.
PS: This is one reason businesses lease servers instead of buy them. It makes it easy to cycle out the old junk every few years.
Very true. But the cost of buying out the lease of existing servers to use as dom0's was more cost effective than leasing new servers that would be overkill for the entire length of the lease. It's cost justification. Next leasing cycle, specs need to be re-evaluated.
If the CPU doesn't have hardware VM built on it, it isn't an ideal candidate for serving virtual machines period.
Wrong. The CPU's still work great with paravirtualization for creating linux vm's. Just because everyone tends to ignore xen's ability to paravirtualize, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It works very well and is very ideal for some needs.
Why would I want to spend money on buying new servers when the ones I own already work fine? Just because the next servers I buy will probably have vt-x, doesn't change the fact that the ones I currently own don't.
Using the argument that people just need to upgrade their hardware is garbage. Virtualization is supposed to CUT costs, not incur new hardware costs. The fact that I could take old machines that have run their course as database servers and convert them into several virtual machines for more lightweight stuff (web,dns,ldap,etc.) is what drew me into virtualization in the first place.
He used to be a hilarious DJ on WXDX in Pittsburgh that I listened to in college.