No, but I considered it.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #199,312 by broomberg 3/17/05 8:26:03 PM Reply	No, but I considered it. Cost KILLED me. Ended up being $15K per box by the time we added the multi-processor option and support. My boss asked me to defend adding $15K to a $20K box, and having things run 30% slower (at best). And then another $7K per year per box for support. I couldn't. I wanted it, I techno-lusted after it, but I could not justify it.
Post #199,379 by mmoffitt 3/18/05 9:37:29 AM Reply	30% slower? Is that a WAG or do you have benchmarks indicating that? I know this is a function of processor/memroy/disk/etc. utilization (IOW, if the standalone servers are being utilized at 10%, then virtualizing 4 of them I wouldn't expect to see a big decrease in performance). Just curious where you came up with "30% or lower at best." bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #199,464 by broomberg 3/18/05 7:30:45 PM Reply	Tested My stuff is VERY CPU intensive, while also pounding the hell out of the Gbit network. The specs said 5-10%, which I was willing to live with. My tests showed 30%, which I was not.
Post #199,523 by mmoffitt 3/19/05 12:51:43 PM Reply	Okay. Thanks. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.

Anybody using VMWare ESX Server? - (mmoffitt) - (6) - March 17, 2005, 02:59:59 PM EST

danreck/screamer does at... - (folkert) - (1) - March 17, 2005, 03:50:23 PM EST

The IBM package was what I had just demo'd to me. -NT - (mmoffitt) - March 18, 2005, 09:37:47 AM EST

No, but I considered it. - (broomberg) - (3) - March 17, 2005, 08:26:03 PM EST

30% slower? - (mmoffitt) - (2) - March 18, 2005, 09:37:29 AM EST

Tested - (broomberg) - (1) - March 18, 2005, 07:30:45 PM EST

Okay. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt) - March 19, 2005, 12:51:43 PM EST

Allow me to retort!
38 ms