From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Mar 12 4:49:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from hawk-systems.com (hawk-systems.com [161.58.152.235]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D0937B719 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:49:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dave@hawk-systems.com) Received: from server0 (cr1032856-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.146.66]) by hawk-systems.com (8.8.8) id FAA70215 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:49:19 -0700 (MST) From: "Dave VanAuken" To: Subject: RE: co-location model Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org My only complaint about jail, is the storage overhead (about 200mb though I havn't really hacked off the non-essentials). i have not had enough "heavy" jails to see what sort of processor drain each causes... if i can get 20 jails per machine it is a profitable venture. that and the lack of real specific control from the host machine on the jail environments... some of these features are "forthcoming" supposidly. Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG [mailto:owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Forrest W. Christian Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 10:06 PM To: Jeff Gray Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: co-location model 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 > To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG > Cc: Jeff Gray > 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message