ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    How many Linux servers do I really need?

    IT Discussion
    8
    43
    7.1k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      scottalanmiller @Dashrender
      last edited by

      @Dashrender said:

      Running Windows inside a container would be lighter than virtualization?

      Containerization is lighter than virtualization. That is its sole purpose.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @Dashrender said:

        Aren't we already doing that with XenServer - is a VM inside XenServer a container? lol - I'm confusing myself.

        XenServer is a hypervisor. Windows is virtualized there, not containerized. Don't start applying the word container to things that are not container platforms. VMs run on hypervisors, containers do not.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • S
          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said:

          Personally I felt like I missed the beginning of virtualization because to me it felt like it was for enterprise only - of course now it's being touted as the absolute starting point for any project unless you can show specific reasons why it doesn't/can't/won't work for your project (unlike SAN, which should still primarily live in the enterprise)

          Virtualization has been for the SMB since the day it was released. It's never been about size or scale. Containers too. SMBs that run Linux have used containers for a decade, it's standard, old hat, so old no one talks about it.

          What is interesting today is that three new container players; Docker, Rocket and LXC, have emerged and have a lot of great technology behind them, big communities and are finally being used on a large scale. DevOps has made containers important in a way that it has not been before. In the same ways that cloud and DevOps have made VMs not just important but necessary, containers take this to another level by making things lighter still.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • S
            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said:

            maintaining all of these micro VMs seems like such a pain in the ass.

            You'll confuse yourself less if you always call them containers and always call the others VMs. Don't mix the terms, it will just be confusing. Only two resulting object terms, VMs and containers.

            A container takes no more effort to maintain than a VM, they are identical to a systems admin. Just as a VM takes no more effort to maintain than a physical box, less actually. There is nothing that creates "more" work.

            D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • D
              Dashrender @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said:

              A container takes no more effort to maintain than a VM, they are identical to a systems admin. Just as a VM takes no more effort to maintain than a physical box, less actually. There is nothing that creates "more" work.

              Right that I understand, but putting each and every service, when possible, in it's own VM or container is what I meant by the micro VMs - instead of maintaining one system that has AD/File/Print/small DB, now your maintaining 4 boxes. Granted with tools, managing them is easier today, but not the same as managing one. that's all I was getting at.

              T S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                travisdh1 @Dashrender
                last edited by

                @Dashrender said:

                @scottalanmiller said:

                A container takes no more effort to maintain than a VM, they are identical to a systems admin. Just as a VM takes no more effort to maintain than a physical box, less actually. There is nothing that creates "more" work.

                Right that I understand, but putting each and every service, when possible, in it's own VM or container is what I meant by the micro VMs - instead of maintaining one system that has AD/File/Print/small DB, now your maintaining 4 boxes. Granted with tools, managing them is easier today, but not the same as managing one. that's all I was getting at.

                It's not the same as managing a single one, but it should be just as easy.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  @Dashrender said:

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  A container takes no more effort to maintain than a VM, they are identical to a systems admin. Just as a VM takes no more effort to maintain than a physical box, less actually. There is nothing that creates "more" work.

                  Right that I understand, but putting each and every service, when possible, in it's own VM or container is what I meant by the micro VMs - instead of maintaining one system that has AD/File/Print/small DB, now your maintaining 4 boxes. Granted with tools, managing them is easier today, but not the same as managing one. that's all I was getting at.

                  Ah, I see. I would argue that it is easier to manage, not harder, especially with Linux. The management of the OS is so trivial itself and so repeatable that there is nearly zero overhead from that - remember this isn't Windows. You can easily manage ten Linux boxes for every one of Windows before talking DevOps (these are real numbers from enterprise environments) so keep that in mind. Then consider how much easier it is to manage applications when you have no fear of interaction issues and can isolate the OS/Application for troubleshooting, repair, updates, etc.

                  For example, you need to do a reboot on the database server but the email server can't go down at the same time - no problem, you can reboot by application.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                  • S
                    stacksofplates
                    last edited by

                    I really think LXD will be a nice addition. The one bad thing about LXC is it's not standard across distros. Each one seems to make it's bridge a different name, and if you try to create a container with a release of Ubuntu with systemd on a host without systemd it causes some issues.

                    The live migration in LXD will be a killer feature.

                    S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                      last edited by

                      @johnhooks said:

                      I really think LXD will be a nice addition. The one bad thing about LXC is it's not standard across distros. Each one seems to make it's bridge a different name, and if you try to create a container with a release of Ubuntu with systemd on a host without systemd it causes some issues.

                      The live migration in LXD will be a killer feature.

                      Same issue you will always have with containers.

                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        stacksofplates @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        @johnhooks said:

                        I really think LXD will be a nice addition. The one bad thing about LXC is it's not standard across distros. Each one seems to make it's bridge a different name, and if you try to create a container with a release of Ubuntu with systemd on a host without systemd it causes some issues.

                        The live migration in LXD will be a killer feature.

                        Same issue you will always have with containers.

                        Just throwing it out there as a reference 😛

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • R
                          RamblingBiped @Alex Sage
                          last edited by

                          @anonymous

                          How many Linux servers do you need?

                          All of them. You need them all.

                          MattSpellerM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                          • MattSpellerM
                            MattSpeller @RamblingBiped
                            last edited by

                            @RamblingBiped said:

                            @anonymous

                            How many Linux servers do you need?

                            All of them. You need them all.

                            /thread

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • S
                              scottalanmiller
                              last edited by

                              Yup, that says it all.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • 1
                              • 2
                              • 3
                              • 3 / 3
                              • First post
                                Last post