Help Does Cpu Strength Mean Much When Dealing With L2Off?

[JulietCapulet]

Basically I'm curious if its too much of a deal for L2Off to be hosted for example between E3-1271V3 and Dual E5-2620.

[Asmodeus]

Hehe it kinda went out of topic there didn't it :)

 

I agree with using Raid 1 in this case though. 

And as I mentioned before, backing up daily db dump to cloud isn't a bad idea either.

 

Nowadays cloud becomes almost free*, I'd suggest backing up once an hour or a couple of hours.

 

*Google Drive offers 15GB free, and 100GB cost just as 2$.

[*real*savormix]

I work in IT infrastructure, if you use proper virtual environments then it shouldn't be a problem.

Now this is not related to L2 at all.

 

Currently got over 500 virtual servers, anything from high traffic APP servers to high CPU/RAM consuming databases... list goes on and on, no issues at all.

Actually virtual hardware works more efficient than if you ran everything off the physical server.

 

It all depends on the setup and configuration.

Generally the more some software is dependent on milli/microsecond precision in its execution (because of the dreaded non realtime OS 'executed not earlier than' constraint), the worse virtualized environments perform.

So while they are okay for web services or serving webpages, or hosting large DBs where a SELECT that does pretty much no IOPS (optimal execution plan) still takes more than one tenth a second to complete, where virtual environments will show really efficient results, they are definitely not a cure to everything.

Plus, if for some reason you get some problems, e.g. with unstable getTimeOfDay(), all you can do is switch to another provider, because you cannot investigate anything, unlike when there is actual physical hardware available to you.

[scrubs]

Generally the more some software is dependent on milli/microsecond precision in its execution (because of the dreaded non realtime OS 'executed not earlier than' constraint), the worse virtualized environments perform.

So while they are okay for web services or serving webpages, or hosting large DBs where a SELECT that does pretty much no IOPS (optimal execution plan) still takes more than one tenth a second to complete, where virtual environments will show really efficient results, they are definitely not a cure to everything.

Plus, if for some reason you get some problems, e.g. with unstable getTimeOfDay(), all you can do is switch to another provider, because you cannot investigate anything, unlike when there is actual physical hardware available to you.

 

While that is true with hosting websites etc from massive cluster providers. 

I'm talking more about renting a dedicated server which gives you your own hardware/rack space, deploying esxi on it which gives you full control over your VMs and their hardware resources. I don't see any downsides to this.

Basically it gives you more options, full control, ability to run effectively multiple servers on one dedicated server and none the less easiest migration options if you ever decide to change host provider. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by scrubs

[*real*savormix]

While that is true with hosting websites etc from massive cluster providers. 

I'm talking more about renting a dedicated server which gives you your own hardware/rack space, deploying esxi on it which gives you full control over your VMs and their hardware resources. I don't see any downsides to this.

Basically it gives you more options, full control, ability to run effectively multiple servers on one dedicated server and none the less easiest migration options if you ever decide to change host provider.

That does make sense.

 

P.S. It is still less resource overhead if you run all the servers on the native OS (different DB names and updated OPENROWSETs + patched hardcoded CacheD statements + patched hardcoded registry paths + patched mutex checks). But yes, migrating the whole VM (regardless if you migrate only one server or all of them) is just. so. easy.

Edited October 9, 2015 by _dev_

[tk422]

While that is true with hosting websites etc from massive cluster providers. 

I'm talking more about renting a dedicated server which gives you your own hardware/rack space, deploying esxi on it which gives you full control over your VMs and their hardware resources. I don't see any downsides to this.

Basically it gives you more options, full control, ability to run effectively multiple servers on one dedicated server and none the less easiest migration options if you ever decide to change host provider. 

 

Have you had any experience with Hyper-V 2012 R2?

I used to use VMWare exclusively for myself and clients but more recently been using Hyper-V for new deployments.

Performance feels better and there seems to be less resource usage all around.

Not to mention management is 100x easier :P.

[xeL]

we are out of the topic since long :). locked