Skip to main content

Virtualization: VMware client stories rolling in!


Well if you have been thinking that that ride is going to be bumpy then you are not the only one. This company went through that same narrow lane and came out winners in the end.

For example, in 2006, STM's major focus was to replace 30 aging IBM Netfinity servers at a cost of approximately $212,000. This would have been for just one-to-one replacement of the physical machines, without any frills like redundancy, he explains. In comparison, the VMware software and associated hardware cost $178,000 but had enough capacity to house 45 servers instead of 30. So even with a conservative ratio of 15:1 for the server consolidation using high-end IBM 3950 servers, STM was able to improve performance and provide physical redundancy for all servers.

Even with the consolidation of the initial 30 machines, there's room enough to add another 10 to 20 servers into the mix.

Although the initial plan was to implement the original 30 server loads onto three of the new IBM servers, Stefanakis' team actually wound up with eight new IBM 3950 units. "From the time we sized the solution, to the actual purchase approximately nine months later, we found more money from various projects to purchase an additional five servers," he says. There are two IBM 445 machines running VMware as well.


See for yourself how. Go tell your story too! Talk about the hardships and share your success! Watch out for the downsides and stay afloat by constantly aligning the corporate strategies with both internalization and externalization greased up adequately. Remember your goal is not only consolidation but gain explosive productivity!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more