[mythtv-users] OT: Virtualization

[jacek burghardt]

I believe we all can agree that virtualisation is great for development and
testing. We can test newer version of mythtv without messing up our main
box.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:04 PM, jacek burghardt
<jaceksburghardt at gmail.com>wrote:

> My box has 32 gb and 6 cores and that is my home box. I found out the only
> way I could stop my family members from getting  viruses on windows pc is
> to have them live on domain and be locked down by policy . I have zimbra in
> cloud as backup but  I like exchange. I run number of applications that are
> linked to my domain controler. it server really well and i have extended
> family use it for stuff with no issues.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Raymond Wagner <raymond at wagnerrp.com>wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/2013 11:00 AM, jacek burghardt wrote:
>>
>>> I virtualization is all about saving money an power and testing.
>>>
>>
>> No. That's consolidation. You can run multiple servers on one system
>> image. You can run multiple servers on isolated filesystems on one system
>> image. You can run multiple servers on independent system images running in
>> virtual machines.
>>
>> The feature set of virtualization necessarily encompasses many of the
>> behaviors users are looking for, but full machine virtualization is not a
>> necessary, nor even a desired, aspect of providing those behaviors.
>>
>>
>>  is incorrect is very easy to pass pci devices.
>>>
>>
>> The LinuxTV driver developers would disagree with you. Many times have
>> they tried to diagnose strange behavior on some user's system, only to
>> discover they were attempting hardware passthrough in a virtual machine.
>> Hardware drivers make certain, entirely reasonable, assumptions about the
>> behavior of the hardware they are interfacing with, and attempting to use
>> hardware in a virtual machine often invalidates those assumptions.
>>
>>
>>  The box also runs freepbx, pfsense, 3 x server 2012 ( domain controler,
>>> exchange server)
>>>
>>
>> PFSense is a special case, as a firewall application, it would need to
>> directly manage the host, or at least have its own virtualized network
>> stack to control. FreePBX and most other POSIX style applications would
>> otherwise be perfectly content to operated in an isolated chroot,
>> completely independent of any other task on the system.
>>
>> Windows is a bit different. Unlike POSIX, it hasn't had 30+ years of
>> isolation and sandboxing tools like chroot, and applications fight a lot
>> more. Further, you can't run Windows and POSIX applications on the same
>> host, however often times, that's more a function of finding more
>> appropriate tools for your operating system of choice. There are plenty of
>> groupware tools to replace exchange, using industry standards like IMAP,
>> WebDAV, and CalDAV to provide the same functionality. Samba really doesn't
>> cut it as a replacement domain controller through.
>>
>> Of course, if you are a large enough organization to need an exchange
>> server, and the management capabilities of a domain controller, chances are
>> you're going to have enough load on them to merit giving them their own
>> physical systems, rather than putting them on an overextended box with a
>> bunch of other servers.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> mythtv-users mailing list
>> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
>> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/**listinfo/mythtv-users<http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20130704/0a74d3d5/attachment.html>