Mark, Re: Job listings .. yes, i imagine it must be true; i am trying to strengthen all things virtualization, not only because i think they make a damn interesting system to work with, and not only because they can make a lot of pain points in computing outrageously cooler, but also because i need to make a living... but that being said... i was never hired because postfix or openssh were on my resume, but these days they have helped me to hang on to my current position.. i imagine knowledge of xen could have a similarly anchoring nature, especially in places were a lot of Citrix is used (now). if anyone has any pro/con xen vs esx in production i'd really like to hear about it. katsu On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:45 PM, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: > katsumi liquer wrote: >> Mark, re: bare metal; what they mean by that these days is just that >> you install ESX as the root/core/main/host operating system for that >> machine, wether it be virtual or physical. It's a very confusing term > > I'm not confused. As I keep trying to explain to people, I know what it means - > the thing is that I am *now* running Linux on my home system, which I'm typing > this email on, and want to install it on *that*. I am not about to go out and > buy a new box, or even go out to buy a new hard drive, to install it on. > <snip> >> re: ESX & $$$ In general the way it works is that the core enterprise >> VM server component, ie: the ESX kernel is available in a particular >> flavor for free, and they call that flavor ESX 3i. It's free, but it >> has a slightly different capability to matrix and makeup to the >> tradition ESX 3.x server. For one thing it does not have a complete >> userspace setup any more, and by default you can't really even access >> a shell, altho it does have busybox hidden. >> >> the reality of the situation is that ESX is an extremely solid and >> robust product, and in either form you will not be disappointed by >> either the capacity it is able to suck from even a mild server >> platform, but also that the stability and management are very >> straight-forward and unified , at least to the degree that vmware is >> the sole vendor of ESX kernel environments, and the support >> implications that entails. > > Right. That's what I've been hearing for a while now, and it seems to me that > once I set it up, creating the VMs and installing o/s's in those VM's, and then > running them, will be pretty much the same as installing ESXi, then installing > o/s's in VMs.... >> >> i support xen and esx, you don't need to look any farther than Amazon >> EC2 for proof that xen is an intense and capable vm kernel, but i can >> only speak for esx in terms of being dependable for years on end in >> production, and enabling us to do fairly complex vlan/vswitch and >> storage configurations and in %99 of the time, taking most if it >> without missing a beat. > > As I said, I'd be willing to look at xen, but really don't have any real need > to, since 99.9% of all the sysadmin ads I've seen for 3.5 months, if they > mention virtualization, they say VMware. I think I've seen one? two? ads, in > all that time, that mentioned xen. > > mark > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
