Quote:
Originally Posted by L0stMind
I don't like clouds.
The virtualisation layer causes a significant performance loss. I have intel atom servers that perform way better then vps's and cloud servers with double and triple the resources of the atom... and the atom is a real slow ass server.
I happen to have the privilege of dozens of servers in my office for testing purposes. I've tested a lot of virtualised configurations. Is the "cloud" scalable? yah. Is it easy to manage? yah. Is it fast? no. Is it a good value for your $$? no. The "cloud" may be hosting 2.0 but that doesn't mean it's the way to go or a better value then hosting 1.0.
Just to offer a counter point of view.  |
I am sorry to say. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know that 100% of the fortune 100 use virtualization in there production environment. Do you know about 95% of the fortune 1000 use virtualization in a production environment? If there were performance issues. I do not think this would be the case.
A. If you do not have a server that is prepared for virtualization you should not be using it. (yes HP & Dell servers do have a configuration in the BIOS to set it up for Virtualization. It should be atleast Dual Quad Core with 32 Gigs of RAM minimal. Hopefully anyone running a Cloud service is smart enough to use Blades. )
B. I have yet to see a hosting provider offer SAS Harddrives. Let alone a good SAN solution.(if you are not using a fiberchannel SAN, an iSCSI SAN then there is no point on running virtualization in your production environment).
VPS is a form of cloud hosting. It already exists and is being used.
The major issue with the Cloud is security. Here is a nice article I read today about Cloud & Security. I wont rant on about this. Just read the article.
http://www.cio.com/article/499144/Fi...loud_Computing