in a word yes, but it is a fairly steep learning curve. as it has the
look and feel of UNIX. that said you can do the majority of admin tasks via
their web based admin tool. I have have just installed a two node DL380
dual proc/dual core server attached to a MSA1000. it is currently hosting
six servers at more that adequate speed (ie. no users complaints;-D) and
both nodes are not even breathing heavy never mind sweating.
In my humble opinion it rocks
On 22/06/06, Roger Riggins <roger.riggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Does ESX blow away the other VMWare versions in performance? I've
> installed VMWare Workstation just to test it and it's slower than molasses.
> Of course I don't have any training and haven't wrenched on it a whole lot,
> but the VMs truly are slow, especially if I try to get more than two
> running. I have it running on newer server hardware. :/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Riggins
> Network Administrator
> Lutheran Services in Iowa
> w: 319.859.3543
> c: 319.290.5687
> http://www.lsiowa.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Shonk
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:19 AM
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Which way to go...
>
>
>
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Virtuozzo... VMWare is great, but if
> majority of the stuff is W2k3 and/or linux, why virtualize the hardware
> when you only need to virtualize the OS.
>
> Joe
>
> On 6/22/06, *Selinger, Stephen* < SSelinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I couldn't agree more. It is truly amazing how many server run at 5% all
> day every day. If you are refreshing a bunch of servers the ROI on
> VMWARE ESX Server is an easy sell. Let me know if you need more
> details as I could go on and on...:)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Evan Mann
> Sent: June 21, 2006 8:48 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] RE: [THIN] Re: Which way to go...
>
> I'd go with 2 dual-core processors as well. To be honest, when I think
> server, I don't even think single CPU these days, it doesn't even pop
> into my head. Dual-core is just a bonus on top of it all.
>
> With that in mind, I have a lot of servers that are largely wasted with
> two single-core 2.8-3.2ghz Xeon processors.. But, that's why we are
> going into into server consolidation with VMWare, it solves the wasted
> hardware problem for most (not all) wasted resources.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Adam.Baum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:04 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Which way to go...
>
> Assume everything. We're looking at a technology refresh and we tend to
>
> choose one standard model to purchase for the bulk of our servers.
>
> adam
>
>
>
>
>
> "Selinger,
>
> Stephen"
>
> < SSelinger@xxxxxx
> To
> .ca> <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sent by:
> cc
> thin-bounce@freel
>
> ists.org
> Subject
> [THIN] Re: Which way to go...
>
>
>
> 06/21/2006 03:22
>
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> thin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It really depends on what the role of the server is going to be? I am
> assuming a Citrix server?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Adam.Baum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: June 21, 2006 3:09 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Which way to go...
>
> All,
>
> If you were buying new server, would you go a dual CPU setup or a single
>
> dual-core? Why? I am specing out our new server platform. I've read
> all sorts of benchmarks and such, but they all tend to pit a dual core
> vs a single CPU. Not quite a fair matchup.
>
> adam
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation
> mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
>
>
>
> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it
> is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or privileged
> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
> recipient. Do not copy, distribute or take action relying on it. Any
> communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted
> or destroyed.
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation
> mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation
> mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
>
>
>
> *Lutheran Services in Iowa Confidentiality Notice
> ==================================================================*
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and
> may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
> contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately
> and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
> system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please
> contact the sender.
>
>
--
Tom at home
