Aaron Lippold wrote:
What's the one line ROI then to the
management in your opinion?
IMO the one line ROI is "The jury is still out."
There are definite pros/cons with virtualization and whether or not it
saves you money and/or improves your system platform really depends on
what you are doing now, how you implement virtualization, and what the
expectations are.
You certainly need beefier servers (more RAM, CPUs, etc.) if you plan to
run multiple VMs, and since you are probably going to be asked to use
fewer servers then the servers you do use will need to be pretty
robust/dependable. That costs money. Also, taking one physical server
offline actually takes multiple virtual servers offline, which means you
need either flexibility in scheduling maintenance outages (or patience
from users when you have system crashes) or rely upon the migration
capabilities of VMs. If migrations are the answer, then the storage
component is really critical because you need some shared storage
technology (like SAN) that all of your physical servers have access to.
All of this stuff takes planning and consideration, and getting the
design right is important.
Tom
_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
