 |
 |
We do all our virtualization with Xen. It probably will never take over the high-end role of VMWare and what M$ is trying to get a handle on, and there's a lot of manual work/troubleshooting to be done on it while trying to get answers from the open-source community. But I think it does fit the description of 'free'. We started with VMWare but I could see the way that ESX (2.0 at the time) was going (more restrictive on 'free' version) and it couldn't seem to tell time due to a serious lost clock-tick flaw existing at the time. Turns out time-keeping is important when trying to keep security tokens and tickets working. Xen will probably continue to lag behind the other 2, but it too is making improvements. On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 10:09 -0400, Ed Symanzik wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 12:54 +0000, Ehren Benson wrote: > > Interesting Article I found today, thought it might lead to some fun > > discussion ;) > > Mark and I don't seem to share the same definition of "free". I don't > count free-with-the-purchase-of-Windows-Server as equivalent to free. > > Microsoft may eventually capture enough market share that VMware > collapses, but Hyper-V will never be as nice a product. As soon as > VMware is out of the way Microsoft will coast, and without someone to > lead the way they will make the wrong choices. > > The product I'm keeping an eye on is RedHat. It already does much of > what vSphere is capable of: live migration, high availability, etc. > And, if you go with CentOS, it's really free, not just Microsoft-free. > > http://www.redhat.com/v/swf/rhev/demo.html > (skip forward a couple of sections) > > -- > Ed Symanzik