Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:59 +0100
From:  "Chris Pelling" <chris (at mark) idcnet.co.uk>
Subject:  [coba-e:09673] Re: Upgrade to CentOS5
To:  <coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org>
Message-Id:  <00fa01c785b9$4200ef70$c602ce50$ (at mark) co.uk>
In-Reply-To:  <20070423142727.M78840 (at mark) planetcentral.net>
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0704231856580.15085-100000 (at mark) staff.singnet.com.sg> <200704231539.45750.bq (at mark) solarspeed.net> <20070423142727.M78840 (at mark) planetcentral.net>
X-Mail-Count: 09673

Well 210 quid but still sounds steep, but not as steep as 710 quid for
unlimited clustering...

I understand that the chaps must have put some work into this, but most of
it is opensource..  I wonder if they are going to be sending any funds to
the opensource projects that they are using?

chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul [mailto:paul (at mark) planetcentral.net] 
Sent: 23 April 2007 15:28
To: coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Subject: [coba-e:09672] Re: Upgrade to CentOS5

£300!!! So much for my home hosting then!

Paul

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:39:45 +0100, Michael Stauber wrote
> 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


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.