Reply to post: Re: The real reason Linux admins are smug... LOL at the ignorance

Got $600 for every Win Server 2003 box you're running? Uh-oh

SecretSonOfHG

Re: The real reason Linux admins are smug... LOL at the ignorance

"That simplifies management of the hardware, not the OS."

Which is still a plus, unless you work in a silo where only see and manage one side of the costs. From a business standpoint, the TCO includes SW and HW so there is no point in saving in some balance sheet line if you lose more in another.

"Wrong - it does - see https://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/hh997019.aspx"

Funny that your link states at the end that the feature is deprecated in Windows Server 2012. If you depend on that perhaps you should start planning to move these workloads to say, some Unix flavor?

"Erm no. Usually you significantly gain in usable memory and CPU versus many stand alone systems. Because of VMWare memory compression and because of being able to use otherwise unused CPU cycles."

Erm... so because Windows wastes memory and CPU and the hypervisor allows you to contend that waste, that makes Windows better? I thought the purpose of an OS was to manage machine resources, you seem to prefer to have another layer on top of that. Me, I prefer an OS that can make a reasonable use of resources and where I can use more than a single daemon without taking over the whole machine.

There's a reason for the predominant model of Windows deployment being one single service running in one single OS instance. And there are valid reasons to virtualize Unix servers, but to contend the OS wasting resources is not one of them.

"Sort of like Hyper-V + App-V + Windows Resource Manger do on Windows.."

You should leave Hyper-V from the list, because that's a heawiweight hypervisor. As for App-V, it is in theory quite flexible because it allows you to do sort of remote desktop or run the binaries on clients, but in practice is mostly used for end user apps and not for servers. Guess that is because of the limitations it imposes on servers (you can't use it on Server Core, for example) and apps (Google for App-V SQL Server limitations)

A chroot jail coupled with a package manager gives you much, much more flexibility, I'd say. True, with some complexity. And Resource Manager is being deprecated as per your link.

Regarding your SQL Server cluster experience, I have to concede that point to you. I have not managed these directly, and in my experience they seem to fail over but then for some reason or another people never add back the failed node and the cluster simply loses a node forever until they rebuild a new node. Since I'm no SQL Server cluster expert, I can't tell if that is due to the inherent risk involved or because I've not had SQL Server admins as good as the ones you deal with.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon