6 ms·
On a big server, you would probably be running VMs rather than serving directly. And then it becomes easy to do most of what you're talking about - the big serv
by ericd 4y ago
On a big server, you would probably be running VMs rather than serving directly. And then it becomes easy to do most of what you're talking about - the big server is just a pool of resources from which to make small, single purpose VMs as you need them.
- Koshkin 4y agoWhy VMs when you can use containers?
- cestith 4y agoWhy containers when you can use unikernel applications?
- Koshkin 4y agoBut can unikernel applications share a big server (without themselves running inside VMs)?
- cestith 4y agoUnikernels are VM guests. They just need a hypervisor, not to run inside another VM.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoBetter support when at least in the neighborhood of the herd.
- ericd 4y agoIf you prefer those, go for it. I like my infra tech to be about as boring and battle tested as I can get it without big negatives in flexibility.
- Koshkin 4y agoIn theory, VMs should only be needed to run different OSes on one big box. Otherwise, what should have sufficed (speaking of what I 'prefer') is a multiuser OS that does not require additional layers to ensure security and proper isolation of users and their work environments from each other. Unfortunately, looks like UNIX and its descendants could not deliver on this basic need. (I wonder if Multics had something of a better design in this regard.)