Why Virtualization is Hot – and Could Become Even Hotter

9

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

nekollx

 Windows Virtual PC enables Windows 7 Business and Ultimate editions to run a free virtualized version of Windows XP (Windows XP Mode).

 

You missed that Win 7 PROFESSIONAL also has XP mode.

 

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Biceps

I understand why people think virtualization is so cool, but people are not taking into account the fact that every single packet has to travel over the internet from wherever your server is to your thin client.  Every time the internet is having a bad day, or your local ISP has an issue, ALL of your computers go down.

My company has, in the past couple of years, saved maybe $500 through virtualization in the two branches I work in, and we are now phasing it out.  I have personally seen us lose several thousand dollars more than once because we couldn't take a payment because our thin clients weren't working.

I think virtualization is very very overrated.  Sending every mouseclick to a server on the other side of the country cannot be more efficient in the long run, IMHO.  Call me old fashioned. 

avatar

r7mr7m

Ummm... You are assuming that people only use virtualization for thin clients accross internet connections. This is simply not true. One of the main points of virtualization is to have the capability of moving virtual machines across physical servers in maintenance or troubleshooting software or hardware issues for maximum uptime. Also, it is to use one physical server to run multiple server OSs with various functions so that you can get the most use out of the physical server (server consolidation) and saving power, which is becoming more and more expensive and with datacenters charging extra or limiting the number of physical servers per rack, virtualization is vital.

It is quite often used for onsite servers. I guarantee you can save more than $500 when implementing virtualization. Let's say you have 3 or 4 servers. First off, you don't have the cost associated with the purchase /maintenance of the hardware of 3 or more servers. With Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition, you can save money on licensing because you can run up to four running virtual instances on one server at no additional cost. Also, the power draw from one physical box despite being utilized quite a bit more than a single use server is significantly less than 3 or more servers with multiple power supplies. And if you factor the cost of uptime through an inherent fault tolerance (fewer dollars spent on recovery), you can almost certainly save tens of thousands, just in this scenario.

avatar

Biceps

You are absolutely correct, but my opinion stands.  You didn't mention anything about how virtualization is great for running legacy programs on a modern OS, either.  Virtualization has its place, and has a lot of potential in some areas - like maximizing the ability of a single 'box'. We have saved a lot of money on servers at our company (a LOT more than $500, you are right) doing exactly as you mentioned.

My main gripe is specifically with thin clients - one of the most visible and most marketed (at least to company management) capabilities of virtualization. The $500 bucks we saved was actually the difference between what we paid for a few thin clients vs. what we would have paid for 'real' computers. What is not factored in is the fact that we had to upgrade our internet service from T1 to T3 to handle the additional bandwidth used by thin clients. We wouldn't need servers at all if some dip hadn't purchased a couple hundred thin clients. We could just run everything locally... or have 1 server for specific centralized database needs.  Our entire company is now phasing out thin clients (in over 50 locations) because they are costing us more than normal PCs.  That is telling, I think.

 

avatar

r7mr7m

So what you are saying is that thin clients are overrated.

avatar

Biceps

Yes, except I am saying IMO thin clients are a phenomenal waste of money and resourses, but are marketed as money savers that increase efficiency. Thin clients are a giant part of the virtualization movement, so therefore virtualization is overrated. Hmf.

I suppose I have lost this battle, but I will be back! Next target --> cloud computing. :D

 

 

avatar

r7mr7m

LOL

avatar

mattman059

Im currently using VirtualBox to host my freeNAS server and its awesome. I couldnt be happier with the benefits that a virtual envrionment offers.

On my main system I use VirtualBox to test out Operating Systems like Debian, Mandriva, BackTrack.

avatar

r7mr7m

Thumbs up on VirtualBox.  The latest version is an amazing addition of features with teleportation and the updated snapshot branching. I have astaro, server 2003 r2 x64, ubuntu x64, Server 2008 guests and am trying to find a way to get freenas to recognize the drives of the host.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.