I totally agree that planning is a big issue - as always. I guess the tipping point for an overall win is still, as you said, in deliberation. On 10/23/07, Tom Georgoulias <tomg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
