[mythtv-users] OT: Virtualization
Raymond Wagner
raymond at wagnerrp.com
Thu Jul 4 16:42:56 UTC 2013
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.
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list