<div dir="ltr">Dear Helm,<br><br>Kindly confirm why you do not recommend the VMs solution and if you had bad experience for it and what did you get?<br><br>Regards<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Wilton Helm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:whelm@compuserve.com">whelm@compuserve.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div class="Ih2E3d">>You may be able to split up some of the servers into
multiple VMs -- maybe five >servers with five VMs each. <br>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
</div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">I'm not sure I see the merit in this. VMs
seem to be regarded as a magic bullet (i.e. free lunch). I don't know of
any case where 5 VMs can accomplish more work on one processor than simply
letting the processor manage it all (except if the OS and or application can't
efficiently split the task into the necessary multiple threads, which I don't
think is an issue here). By definition, the total accomplished must be
less with VMs, because the hypervisor will take some CPU cycles.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Wilton</font></div>
<div> </div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by <a href="http://www.api-digital.com" target="_blank">http://www.api-digital.com</a> --<br>
<br>
asterisk-users mailing list<br>
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users" target="_blank">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>