4 ms·

In 15 years of professional experience I've never worked at a place that uses VMs on the servers they own. They're just going to run Linux off an image so what'

In 15 years of professional experience I've never worked at a place that uses VMs on the servers they own. They're just going to run Linux off an image so what's the point? You might want to look outside your niche.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dijit 3y ago
Is this true? I have honestly never worked in any company >50 people that didn't use VMs on owned hardware in some capacity, though usually not the main product. IT departments typically love VMs (and vmware)- AD machines are most often hosted on VMs on VMWare.
- dataangel 3y ago
  Two of the companies I've worked for have run gigantic clusters and had >100 employees and didn't really use VMs. One of them used one to build some third party libs, but it was basically an implementation detail of one script. Everything on the servers was still bare metal. You already have user separations, permissions/privileges, etc. It's not clear what a VM adds other than as a hack to allowed installed packages to diverge which doesn't matter if you vendor them.
TillE 3y ago
Unless you're running at 100% load most of the time, it's atypical to run a server on bare metal these days. Much more flexible, maintainable, and cost-saving to stick servers in a VM. We sell a product that used to be delivered as a rack mountable server, but now I think nearly all our customers want a VM instead.
- sgarland 3y ago
  I worked for a SaaS that ran a hybrid infra, partially on metal. Each rack had N blade enclosures, which together made up a logical isolated unit, with each blade running something. New blades would get provisioned automatically, then Terraform and Puppet handled their configuration. I don’t remember utilization exactly, but I think most of the blades were reasonably committed. That said, when I left they were moving from a hybrid model to entire cloud, so apparently the cost:flexibility ratio wasn’t to peoples’ liking.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dijit 3y ago

Is this true? I have honestly never worked in any company >50 people that didn't use VMs on owned hardware in some capacity, though usually not the main product. IT departments typically love VMs (and vmware)- AD machines are most often hosted on VMs on VMWare.

dataangel 3y ago
Two of the companies I've worked for have run gigantic clusters and had >100 employees and didn't really use VMs. One of them used one to build some third party libs, but it was basically an implementation detail of one script. Everything on the servers was still bare metal. You already have user separations, permissions/privileges, etc. It's not clear what a VM adds other than as a hack to allowed installed packages to diverge which doesn't matter if you vendor them.

TillE 3y ago

Unless you're running at 100% load most of the time, it's atypical to run a server on bare metal these days. Much more flexible, maintainable, and cost-saving to stick servers in a VM. We sell a product that used to be delivered as a rack mountable server, but now I think nearly all our customers want a VM instead.

sgarland 3y ago
I worked for a SaaS that ran a hybrid infra, partially on metal. Each rack had N blade enclosures, which together made up a logical isolated unit, with each blade running something. New blades would get provisioned automatically, then Terraform and Puppet handled their configuration. I don’t remember utilization exactly, but I think most of the blades were reasonably committed. That said, when I left they were moving from a hybrid model to entire cloud, so apparently the cost:flexibility ratio wasn’t to peoples’ liking.