3 ms·
I think this is becoming less true: people are willing to trade off performance for safety and flexibility, given the right circumstances. For example, running
by _delirium 13y ago
I think this is becoming less true: people are willing to trade off performance for safety and flexibility, given the right circumstances. For example, running everything inside of virtualized Linux instances is less performant than running in bare-metal Linux, but virtualization is nonetheless taking off like crazy.
- userbinator 13y ago> but virtualization is nonetheless taking off like crazy. I think that's more due to hosting providers being able to sell far more "machines" than they have hardware for.
- cwp 13y agoOk, so people are willing to trade off performance for safety, flexibility and price.
- vidarh 13y agoWe're running everything on our own fully owned colocated servers, yet we're running everything in virtualised environments. Private clouds are attractive for many of us because of the management benefits of being able to use a VM as the unit of deployment. It also makes sense to increase isolation, as colo space is expensive enough to justify servers that are much more powerful than many of the apps we run needs (our typical new setups start at 16-24 cores these days, and I expect that to be 32-48 cores by year end), so we want to co-locate many apps on the same servers but don't want them to able to interfere too much with each other. In fact, we have some systems where things are even deployed in containers inside VMs for various reasons...