Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz
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 |
Yah, 12 years hosting experience and no clue what I am saying. Sorry, forgot how GFY works.
So, my test platforms are dual quad core xeons, 16 & 32gb ram, 8 sas or wd velociraptor drive array powered by an adaptec 5805 w/bbu actually installed on the SAME server. Why? Because network attached storage has overhead. Yes, even Fiber does - and guess what? 99% of hosting providers offering networked storage are not using fiber, or even 10G stuff, they are using simple gigE networking. Now granted, most of the really cool shit about Virtualisation is when you have networked storage. But for this test, I simply want to see the overhead Xen has (Xen is what powers most cloud platforms out there).
With no xen, just straight up centos install a couple of bonnie runs, some dd, a little foray into iozone all showed my 8 drive array pushing just a hair under 800mb/s and about 1200 IOPS.
With Xen, 1 domain setup, oodles of testing to find the best setup for performance... we get well under 400mb/s and about 400IOPS.
Tell me there isn't overhead.
Virtualisation is GREAT in many cases. Just not for high performance webservers, mysql servers, email servers - basically, everything that applies to "hosting" in this industry. If it did these things awesomely, cloud hosting would account for more then the 1/30-1/60th of total hosting industry revenues...
Sure with a CDN, some good opcode cache, play around with memcache/whatever & a lot of monkeying around with your cms and coding you CAN make clouds work halfway decently. However, the average webmaster is not a programming wizard nor even an entry level system admin... how can they accomplish this? By hiring a third party who will charge then $100/hr? They might as well buy a monster dedicated server, get better performance, avoid cloud vendor lock-in (nasty api's!) and have a lower monthly bill!
Cloud hosting is VPS hosting with a fancy billing & provisioning system. But until cloud hosting can automatically scale, automatically build out clusters or have transparent process migration like HPC stuff, then it isn't going to be a good fit for the majority of people needing hosting services.
Anyways.
Give clouds another year or so. The virtualisation overhead is getting less and less everyday, performance is getting closer to bare metal and thats what we want. New features are coming out pretty much weekly and it's very interesting. For now, get shared hosting or a dedicated if you need the power. VPS is great for development or if you are on a budget, want a little extra security and aren't really concerned about performance.