Leyne, Sean wrote:

> Geoff,
>> I am something of a fan of virtual machines, having used them
>> for many years to aid development/testing etc. But the simple
>> truth is that you cannot (yet) claim that using VMs means you
>> dont have to care about the host OS. You have seen this for
>> yourself.
>
> I general I agree, but I think the issue depends on the nature of the application.
> It was my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that Lester's application that doesn't need much CPU or HDD performance -- his main problem is trying to simplify the deployment of his application across a board range of client hardware and OS.
> In that case, a VM based application can work pretty effectively, without much regard for the host configuration.

I need to add into this 'mix' the fact that most of my customers have
their own restrictions on what we can do - and IF I go VM THEY would
dictate the rules :( And I presume that I would have to use a VM
solution compatible with what they deploy? ( I've only scratched the
surface of what IS involved )

Some sites ARE now happy to accept Linux boxes on the server side, and
this has opened up a number of advantages, since I can simply drop in a
second machine dedicated to Firebird where the load IS growing and at
the present time, the database can live in memory, so I don't need large
disk storage.

>> The need to use a hypervisor to get better performance for
>> servers reduces the attraction of deploying applications by
>> VM. The clients receiving the deployment must already be
>> prepared to use (or already using) hypervisors to have the
>> necessary infrastructure to manage them.
>
> I don't think that the management of VMs is a real problem for kiosk based deployments (I don't think that a VIA ITX or Intel Atom CPUs should really be used for anything else).
> For applications which are expected to co-exist on a centralized VM infrastructure, then management tools are certainly required.

Since the 'kiosk' devices only require a browser, 'deployment' is simply
loading an OS, and a radically clipped Linux package on USB stick is now
ideal since it also eliminates any hard disk. Booting these machines
from the network would be the ideal, but THAT requires on-site awareness
to support it. Much as I think we are also talking about for VM anyway?

I CAN see the advantage of 'VM' over my current 'solution' of multiple
machines ( There are currently 8 hooked up to the KVM switch out in the
garage with extenders to the dual screen display in the office so I
don't get the fan noise ;) ) - but I think I still need to be convinced
where machines are dedicated to a particular server function? If I need
to add high capacity storage ( a possibility if you start archiving
scanned documents ) then I'd simply look to a file server machine rather
than adding hard disks to the web server. But that is my next area to
look at.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php