|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Cluster (VPC), Eucalyptus and preferred distribution to
Thomas Goirand <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Thiago Camargo Martins Cordeiro wrote:
> By the way, I see no importance in the so-called "cloud". I know it goes
> on the opposite way of the current fashion, but I strongly believe that
> if you need power, then a cluster of REAL servers (eg: not virtual) is
> obviously the way to go. If you don't need lot's of resources, then a
> small VPS or 2 are enough. The number of times you will really need
> scalability are so small, and even though, scalability can be achieved
> without using could.
How would you like to be able to move your VPS from one provider to another
with a few clicks?
That is the real advantage, I think, to something like Eucalyptus.
If you single source anything, your vendor has a fiduciary duty to their
shareholders to screw you. Only by always being ready to leave one can you
force competitiveness.
Now, sure, 90% of the time, you use the VPS usage model, where you turn the
server on and leave it on. But making it easy to backup, move and
provision new boxes is a big plus.
Of course, you can do all those things with existing technologies. But
when you setup a datacenter, you have to hire a few expensive sysadmins
to figure it out and set it up for you. (I'm helping a client with
this right now) Standardizing this process does have real value.
I agree that if you are going for maximum power (that is, if you need
more power than is provided by the best value size of server) virtualization
hurts more than it helps, however, the standardized provisioning
concepts can be applied to physical servers as well as virtual servers.
That said, calling it 'cloud computing' rather than 'standardized provisioning'
is silly marketing bs. But 'standardized provisioning' does have some
real value.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
Home