5 ms·
Sometimes you have a workload that really isn't a fit for virtualization/containers/whatever the latest Rails hotness is, at all, and you just need to throw a c
by lwhalen 11y ago
Sometimes you have a workload that really isn't a fit for virtualization/containers/whatever the latest Rails hotness is, at all, and you just need to throw a couple of cargo trailers of insanely massively-spec'd servers at the problem. In those cases, your 'old school' server provisioning toolkit had better be on-point.
It's easy to forget just how ridiculously powerful bare iron is these days. Go to Dell.com and see how much RAM you can cram into a U or three or four today in 2015. Or see how many IOPS a modern NetApp or Symmetrix (EMC) can push with 'flashcache' or million-dollar SSDs. It is ridiculous, and while a lot of those platforms are meant for 'building your own private cloud', etc, there's a non-trivial amount of workloads/projects where bare-iron is the best tool for the job.
- icebraining 11y agoContainers are just a namespacing tool, though; you're still running on bare metal (well, bare Linux). Docker in particular runs on AuFS, which is slow, but other containerization tools just use a chroot.
- vidarh 11y agoDocker can run on any number of things, include btrfs and overlayfs+ext4, as well as devicemapper. E.g. CoreOS defaults to overlayfs.
- mariusmg 11y ago>Sometimes you have a workload that really isn't a fit for virtualization Yeah, any serious I/O load is unsuited for virtualization.
- devonkim 11y agoA lot of other latency-sensitive applications tend to have so many adverse performance conditions (that can usually be remediated with a lot of blood sweat and tears) under virtualization that it becomes easier to just go bare metal and deal with physical infrastructure overhead.