> Alexandre Benson Smith wrote:
>> From the Geoff post the only conclusion for me is... The guy
>> used the wrong product, and standard virtualization is not
>> suitable for production environment.
>
> I can't really agree with such a sweeping statement. It all
> depends on what your "production environment" is.
>
> I work inside VMs running under VMWare Workstation for most of
> the day and for most of my purposes the performance is more
> than adequate. Would some things work faster directly on the
> hardware, sure, but the convenience of VM has been well worth
> it for me. (For most office type work the performance is not
> an issue, for development the convenience of multiple platforms
> and easy to recover isolated systems is just too good to miss.)
>
> The only time I've tried doing VM work on a notebook it was
> not a success - the notebook just didn't have the memory nor
> a fast enough harddrive to make it workable.

Yep, RAM and harddisk. Upgraded my desktop to 12GB RAM spending a VM
3-4GB RAM and put my two most important and heavily used VM onto a Intel
320 SSD with daily backups onto an external drive. VMs on a SSD really
rock. E.g. pause/resume a VM is pretty much instantaneous.


--
With regards,

Thomas Steinmaurer
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
http://blog.upscene.com/thomas/

Download LogManager Series, FB TraceManager today!
Continuous Database Monitoring Solutions supporting
Firebird, InterBase, Advantage Database, MS SQL Server
and NexusDB!