From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Mar 11 15:13:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from bilver.wjv.com (dhcp-1-6.n01.orldfl01.us.ra.verio.net [157.238.210.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA0637B719 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:13:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bill@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bill@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29314; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:13:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bill) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:13:12 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion To: jwgray@netbox.com Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: co-location model Message-ID: <20010311181311.A29281@wjv.com> Reply-To: bv@bilver.wjv.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jwgray@netbox.com on Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 01:32:22PM -0800 Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 01:32:22PM -0800, Jeff Gray thus spoke: > 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? IBM is selling a solutions like this for Linux. Their example shows $1.2million for an S390 [some new ??-server name] running and with 2500 instances of Linux. It's a much smaller footprint than 2500 machines and surely a lot less of a hassle to wire up. They advertise at basically five 9s - 5 minutes downtime per year - with onsite service if needed. I beleiver I read that Sendmail, Inc. has one of these installed. > [I say mainframe only to emphasize extreme hardware and software > reliability]. That's how IBM is pushing their iron. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message