VMWare

[katsumi liquer]

Mark,

Re: Job listings .. yes, i imagine it must be true; i am trying to
strengthen all things virtualization, not only because i think they
make a damn interesting system to work with, and not only because they
can make a lot of pain points in computing outrageously cooler, but
also because i need to make a living... but that being said... i was
never hired because postfix or openssh were on my resume, but these
days they have helped me to hang on to my current position.. i imagine
knowledge of xen could have a similarly anchoring nature, especially
in places were a lot of Citrix is used (now). if anyone has any
pro/con xen vs esx in production i'd really like to hear about it.

katsu

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:45 PM, mark <m.roth2006 at rcn.com> wrote:
> katsumi liquer wrote:
>> Mark, re: bare metal; what they mean by that these days is just that
>> you install ESX as the root/core/main/host operating system for that
>> machine, wether it be virtual or physical. It's a very confusing term
>
> I'm not confused. As I keep trying to explain to people, I know what it means -
> the thing is that I am *now* running Linux on my home system, which I'm typing
> this email on, and want to install it on *that*. I am not about to go out and
> buy a new box, or even go out to buy a new hard drive, to install it on.
> <snip>
>> re: ESX & $$$ In general the way it works is that the core enterprise
>> VM server component, ie: the ESX kernel is available in a particular
>> flavor for free, and they call that flavor ESX 3i. It's free, but it
>> has a slightly different capability to matrix and makeup to the
>> tradition ESX 3.x server. For one thing it does not have a complete
>> userspace setup any more, and by default you can't  really even access
>> a shell, altho it does have busybox hidden.
>>
>> the reality of the situation is that ESX is an extremely solid and
>> robust product, and in either form you will not be disappointed by
>> either the capacity it is able to suck from even a mild server
>> platform, but also that the stability and management are very
>> straight-forward and unified  , at least to the degree that vmware is
>> the sole vendor of ESX kernel environments, and the support
>> implications that entails.
>
> Right. That's what I've been hearing for a while now, and it seems to me that
> once I set it up, creating the VMs and installing o/s's in those VM's, and then
> running them, will be pretty much the same as installing ESXi, then installing
> o/s's in VMs....
>>
>> i support xen and esx, you don't need to look any farther than Amazon
>> EC2 for proof that xen is an intense and capable vm kernel, but i can
>> only speak for esx in terms of being dependable for years on end in
>> production, and enabling us to do fairly complex vlan/vswitch and
>> storage configurations and in %99 of the time, taking most if it
>> without missing a beat.
>
> As I said, I'd be willing to look at xen, but really don't have any real need
> to, since 99.9% of all the sysadmin ads I've seen for 3.5 months, if they
> mention virtualization, they say VMware. I think I've seen one? two? ads, in
> all that time, that mentioned xen.
>
>        mark
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>