On 10/25/2015 03:08 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
André Verwijs wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
Anyway... if you wanted to play w/it for free, maybe stick it in a VM, thought I'd mention it. Though, FWIW, I think I'm sticking with dovecot for the foreseeable future...
why on this list..?? doesn't work on Linux, right??
AFAIK, linux has no problem running 'VM's... or weren't you aware of that?
Oh? I think that VMs have peaked. The VM concept and with it the VDI model are bloated compared to Docker/ https://news.opensuse.org/2014/08/07/official-docker-containers/ The distinction is very simple: running VMs duplicates the OS partion. Now this is useful in a lot of contexts, such as, as Linda points out, running Windows under Linux, or testing out new releases of an OS. But a lot of production is OS-homogenous. The advantages of many VM on a machine that is otherwise underutilized make more sense with Docker than with VM. Years ago I used to see 'raised floor' rooms (that often weren't) which had stacks of PCs running various versions of Microsoft, each doing just one task: DNS, DHCP, email, authentication, faxing, .... and asked "Why don't you use a UNIX/Linux box and roll all those onto one?" Many of the arguments I heard against it made little sense, irrational and emotional. And I knew they were wrong because I was running such a set-up at home or had set up similar for other people. You can argue about the necessity of doing things like chrooting DNS, postfix, and the adequacy of same from various aspects, but the whole point is that these functions can and do run on just one OS. There is no particular need to run each in a VM. The downside of just chrooting is SPoF. Although not an intrinsic feature of a VM by itself, the management tools that, for example, VMWare offers allows VM migration between machines. Yes there are pure Windows shops and they will continue to use the wasteful overhead of VMs and VDI. But Docker/LXC is in the ascendancy. Not all places are interested in a OS 'religious war', they are happy to focus on function and cost benefit. Many functions are independent of OS, especially infrastructure ones. One of Canada's large telcos needed to scale out support for Windows login and central file system, LDAP and AD services and found that the Microsoft Servers could not cost effectively scale up. They used, instead,a pair of back to back HP-500 series machines running LDAP and SAMBA under HP/UX. Nothing odd about this today, but this was done more than 15 years ago! With a cost benefit of that scaling its hard to see how they would benefit from going back to banks of PCs running VMWare. Big Iron is very reliable. If I were setting up an ISP today I'd use a single large IBM machine running thousands of instances of Suse/Linux and eliminating all the 'wiring'. VMs have their place, but I don't see them as the primary growth area of the future. https://access.redhat.com/articles/1353593 http://www.zdnet.com/article/docker-1-8-adds-serious-container-security -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org