on 16:44 Thu 03 Mar, Lamar Owen (lowen@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thursday, March 03, 2011 04:24:14 pm Dr. Ed Morbius wrote:
> > I think I addressed that reality.
>
> Part of it, yes.
>
> > For some needs, you need to be on
> > bare metal, though whether this is accomplished via multi-booting or
> > multiple systems (if you're doing professional music editing, presumably
> > you can justify a dedicated system to that task).
>
> It's not the computer portion of a separate dedicated system that
> would be expensive; it's the audio interfaces, patching, and control
> surfaces. Much much much easier to dual-boot in a workflow-friendly
> fashion. It would be decidedly nice to have virtualization running
> well enough to handle all the needs; but it requires twice the
> capacity machine to do it.
I thought a bit about that when posting earlier. I still disagree WRT
dual-booting. And no, virtualization doesn't need twice the hardware by
a long shot (aggregated load averaging, shared componentry, and a host
of other savings).
Audio's pretty easy, as you could select between sources and output (or
input) accordingly.
Ditto inputs (keyboard, mouse, etc.). Storage might be
virtualized/aggregated somehow.
For video, you want high-performance. I'm thinking an integrated KVM
might work, or something like it. If done in hardware with digital
inputs it should be pretty good. How you'd split / select displays
would be a design question.
--
Dr. Ed Morbius, Chief Scientist / |
Robot Wrangler / Staff Psychologist | When you seek unlimited power
Krell Power Systems Unlimited | Go to Krell!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
