3 ms·
> Now that most things are virtual and easily created/destroyed there's no good reason _not_ to name functionally. Uh, my servers with at least 256G of RAM and
by 1996 6y ago
> Now that most things are virtual and easily created/destroyed there's no good reason _not_ to name functionally.
Uh, my servers with at least 256G of RAM and a raid60 of more drives than you have virtual machines can't easily be moved around.
> If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply.
Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance!
- oarsinsync 6y ago> Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance! Single function bare metal, that is. At which point, the boring functional naming scheme re-applies easily. If you're running multiple different functions on a single box, how are you guaranteeing any performance for any single function? How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features?
- 1996 6y ago> How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features? Depends on what you think is the most costly: kernel control of processes, or hypervisor control of kernels controlling processes. Based on my experience, no hypervisor is worth the trouble if you have the budget for dedicated servers. > If you're running multiple different functions on a single box The thing is, you don't do that unless you must.