Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:26:57 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Gray <jwgray@netbox.com> To: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: co-location model Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10103111918240.97103-100000@adsl-63-201-55-220.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103112002330.10411-100000@workhorse.iMach.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jail is a good approach for a different problem. Not sure I would want to run hundreds of virtual jail servers on one intel type box. jail does not solve the opportunity of taking 20 machines from a company and replacing it with a 'better' model and then acting as their co-location service manager. The mainframe suggestion/query is to provide real reliability, real fault tolerance, real hardware efficiency [jail does this], real security by a well designed mainframe OS management system, real scalability of user resources like storage space. Lots of good comments so far but, to date, no direct response to my two questions :-) My two questions. -Is this a reasonable long term model for ISPs and or server farms? -Does anyone offer this today at the scale of rack size bites of physical space? Jeff On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > Have you looked at jail? > > With jail you can effectively create numerous machines in one physical > machine. I am planning on doing this as an entry level option in our > colo space. > > man jail > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Jeff Gray wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:32:22 -0800 (PST) > > From: Jeff Gray <jwgray@netbox.com> > > To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG > > Cc: Jeff Gray <jwgray@netbox.com> > > Subject: co-location model > > > > In thinking about the co-location model of many machines, whether 1U or > > bigger, one realizes that lots of space, lots of energy [I am writing from > > California], lots of iron and other materials are inefficiently consumed. > > Let alone late night trips to the server farm. > > > > Instead of co-location with lots of physical servers if someone were to setup > > a mainframe that provided, > > -multiple OS configurations and alternatives > > -centralized hardware management > > -centralized security management on the mainframe > > -flexible, reliable, scalable storage > > > > then space, energy, raw materials and I suspect major costs could be > > minimized. Late night trips to the server could be eliminated! > > > > My two questions. > > -Is this a reasonable long term model for ISPs and or server farms? > > > > -Does anyone offer this today at the scale of rack size bites of > > physical space? > > > > > > [I say mainframe only to emphasize extreme hardware and software > > reliability]. > > > > Interested to hear what the community thinks. > > > > Thanks > > jeff > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > > > > - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) AC7DE > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com > Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10103111918240.97103-100000>