Ran into this article over on CNET news. MS is addressing consumer concern about liscense models with the advent of the dual-core processor. No longer does the dual-core processor model work like it used to. People are becoming fans of the whole virtual pc option for saving on hardware investments, yet is that a questionable option in the long run?
While MS adapting is a good thing, I do question the virtualization trend though. I have been testing MS Virtual server 2005 out on my own laptop here at work. (Beefed up from its origonal specs for work – 1.5gb RAM, 1.8ghz Pentium M) Now running a virtual instance of Win-2k3 Server over an install of Winxp Pro, just barely works. So, taking that into account, the specs one would need to run more than one instance of a virtual server on one machine, would in my estimation cost the equivelent of 2 machines.
So here is my point – run the two individual machines! Why you ask? This is even more important in Enterprise setup, but smaller setups do sometimes need to worry about this as well… but do NOT set yourself up with a single point of failure. You are running 3 virtual servers on the same machine, IIS, exchange, and your DB server… machine hardlocks for some reason (ram cooked, drive read error, power out etc) and boom you just lost all of your resources, not just one. You can get 2-4 servers for the price of one dual-core beefy box and if you find your db server is starting to max out (for example) then upgrade that. Selective upgrading folks. Don’t just throw money at the problem, throw it at me and I will find you a proper (more intellegent) solution. Admittedly big is fun, but not practical and can create future stress for your sysadmin. I know I wouldn’t be able to sleep tonight if I was relying on a single server to do the workload of 4.
What does everyone else think? Let us here at SGB know what your oppinion is.