Re: resource usage]

["Adam R. B. Jack" <aj...@trysybase.com>]

> VMware would be nice (though I have no experience with GX, I imagine its
> better than the consumer stuff ;).

We run VMWare here at TrySybase, and have for a couple of years. All our
demos and such run in VMs (and we have numerous DBs, web servers, app
servers, etc. etc. running on top.) VMWare works nicely for demos where
there isn't continual usage/load.

This posting just brought some things back into memory. We tried running a
full Gump on GSX (on an 'ok' box, not great) and we basically brought VMWare
down. This is probably the only time we've seen VMWare not act like a true
machine (other than this it has been exceptionally stable). [Don't forget,
Gump has had it's sick days & used way too many resources, as we know.] I
can get details of exactly what occured (Robert Meredith, a lurker on infr@)
looked into it. Basiclly thought, Gump pushed GSX too hard for resources.
Virtual Machines are great for flexibility, for sharing, but they can't
compete with raw machines.

Don't forget, GSX still resides on top of the operating system (like VMWAre
Workstation does) so all requests from VMs have to get passed through the
original operating system. Memory is the *main* thing that VMWAre go on and
on and on about needing gobs of. They openly state that VMs are not great
for things like database that use a lot of resources.

We moved from GSX (served us well) to ESX about 6 months ago, and that is
truly sweet. ESX is based on a Linux Kernal and has no OS sitting between it
and the box's hardware. Things run very very nicely, and we are getting
close to 50 VMs on our box (30 before we notice any degradation). Still, it
is a fine balance.

That all said, I'd not discount doing this, just relaying this experience.

regards,

Adam


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

RE: resource usage]

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> We run VMWare here at TrySybase, and have for a couple of years.

> We tried running a full Gump on GSX (on an 'ok' box, not great) and
> we basically brought VMWare down.

> Basiclly thought, Gump pushed GSX too hard for resources.

This might be good to test on brutus, no?

> GSX still resides on top of the operating system (like VMWAre
> Workstation does)

> Memory is the *main* thing that VMWAre go on and on and on about needing
gobs of.

Hence my inquiry to you folks about brutus.  :-)

> We moved from GSX (served us well) to ESX about 6 months ago, and that is
> truly sweet. ESX is based on a Linux Kernal and has no OS sitting between
> it and the box's hardware. Things run very very nicely

Good experience to hear.  If we were to find a similar problem with GSX on
brutus, I expect that VMware would want to know, and we could offer to try
ESX in the same configuration, although I would not take brutus down to do
it.  I'd test it on one of the other x345s first, assuming there is still
one unused.

Anyhow, give it some thought.  :-)

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org