On 02/24/2011 10:47 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote: >> >> >> <snip of good information> >> >>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get >>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list >>> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on >>> "Unsupported" hardware. >>> >>> Player is not a solution if the Virtual machine needs to be running >>> 24/7. It's more suited to testing and demo use. >> >> Agreed--I haven't really found server, however, to be all that great for >> 24/7, so I assumed (and we know what happens when one assumes), that it >> was being used for testing. For any sort of production use, ESXi 4.1 is >> quite good. > > Player isn't good for most of my usage because most of the time I don't want the > console display at all - I just connect to the guests remotely with > freenx/ssh/vnc when necessary. And I have Server 1.x setups that have run for > years with no attention or downtime. I agree that ESXi is better, but it wasn't > free when I built the VMs and I'm running some native Centos stuff on the host > along with several guests. > > Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL turned out > not to work for VMware Server 2.0. But CentOS did come through with > bug-for-bug compatibility as promised, causing the same crashing behavior after > the same minor-rev update. > The ABI is not for things like VMWare when they screw up their updates ... it is for custom 3rd party software that you have spent $1,000,000.00 having developed that will stop working when the ABI changes. In the case of VMWare, they support RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. out of the box and they made a mistake with their RH compile. #1 is a far bigger issue than #2.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
