Hi Patrick,
> First. Good work, Michael.
Thanks.
> [Thoughts...]
>
>
> Some thought on what is 'virtual hosting/domains'
> I think it is important for BQ as it is based on.
>
> Virtual hosting used to be an IP with multiple virtual domains.
>
> But this defination has expanded with introducting of
> Virtual machines (VM).
>
> [...]
> [On CentOS 5 and BQ]
>
> With CentOS 5 and BQ, we are getting BQ ready for
> VM-type virtual hosting model.
Actually Brian and I already started working towards that direction about half
a year ago. Some information about it has already been leaked to this list.
Well, our development has carried fruits and is now ready for general release.
It is called "Aventurin{e} - Linux Virtualization Appliance" and is based on
OpenVZ (for the virtualization) and a modified RaQ550/BlueQuartz GUI for easy
administration. The installer is based on the NuOnce Networks BlueQuartz ISO
image.
For more information see http://www.aventurin.net/
> What happen to the existing model?
> IMHO, no impact as VM-type virtual hosting is an addon.
That's correct. BlueQuartz is still a cornerstone and centerpiece when it
comes to IP or named based hosting. In Aventurin{e} we included an OS
template for CentOS + BlueQuartz, so people can directly create one or more
virtual private servers using CentOS + BlueQuartz.
We had to make a couple of modifications to BlueQuartz to allow it to run well
inside the virtual environment, but these were just minor changes which soon
can be ported back into the general codebase.
Virtualization is a great tool. It can really help to utilize your new or
existing hardware to the maximum. Like that new IBM slogan from their latest
commercial: "Find new uses for things you already own".
In our case the virtualization also helped to overcome two major shortcommings
of BlueQuartz:
- Backup / restores with CMU = Not a desaster recovery, but a desaster all by
itself!
- Inability to cluster BlueQuartz
One thing shouldn't be forgotten, though: Virtualization also means you may
end up putting many eggs into one basket. It's just a natural habbit. Why buy
another server, if you can create just another virtual one?
Sometime down the road you may then eventually end up with one fully utilized
box whose wellbeing suddenly becomes of the utmost importance to you. Any
minor hickup might then cause quite a ruckus with a lot of users or
customers. To some degree this can be compensated with clustering, of course.
Next issue is hardware: If you have 20-50 virtual servers using the same
network interface, the same cable to the switch, the same port on the switch,
then this might create bottlenecks that you didn't have before.
Suddenly the throughput of the network interface may only be 5Mbit per sconds
per virtual server, as you forgot that that odd switch you're using is only a
100Mbit device. Likewise, the harddisk(s) may have to work 10 times harder to
cope with all the data that is moved back and forth due to the many virtual
servers running.
All in all I'd say there is still need for dedicated servers with CentOS +
BlueQuartz on it. In some cases you're better off running dedicated, in some
cases virtualization is the best approach. It all depends on the expected
usage and whatever offers you the best net gain.
--
With best regards,
Michael Stauber
http://www.solarspeed.net