Skip to main content

Webhosting provider choose XenSource over VMware



Alex Barrett from TechTarget reporting...

Why not VMware?

Why did Putegnat choose XenSource over more established options like VMware or Microsoft Virtual Server?

The answer to why not Microsoft Virtual Server was simple. "I'm not a big Microsoft fan," Putegnat said. Plus, since the applications in Joots' software stack are virtually all open source, he was more comfortable with a Linux-focused virtualization suite.

VMware, however, also runs on Linux quite well, and Putegnat did in fact consider it. But the more he looked, the less he thought it was necessary. "We could have shelled out for VMware, but it didn't seem that important," he said. Joots paid $350 for its initial XenSource license. In comparison, list price for a two-processor VMware Infrastructure 3 Starter edition is $1,000, and it ramps up to $5,750 for Enterprise Edition.

Putegnat doesn't regret his choice. He currently runs 25 dedicated Red Hat 4.5 virtual machines on the first XenSource node and has since added a second server on which he hosts about 40 Debian 3.1 VMs. Each Joots client receives its own dedicated VM that runs a basic LAMP stack plus Joots' proprietary content management system.


Read the rest here.
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