FOAK: WMWare

Pesky customers have tasked us to develop and modify a number of
applications which interface with a distributed database and we want to
have multiple copies of said DB that developers can modify, break,
generally **** about with and blow away at their whim.

Unfortunately the unique identifier of each copy of the DB is based on
the server name on which the DB resides, which would appear to limit
the potential for multiple copies of the DB on a single physical
server, so the developers want to buy a bunch of servers to host these
copies.

Given that the purchase and maintenance of these servers would be down
to me, I'm not too keen on that plan and have suggested that they look
at VMWare Workstation to run virtual servers, with the added bonus that
they can blow the DBs away and roll back to older versions with
relative ease.

The response has been that they are not keen to introduce such an
"unknown" into the development and test environment. It seems to me
that they would only be dealing with the OS and the DB and that the
underlying "virtual hardware" would be irrelevant.

So, what's the real story? Does VMWare add "unknowns" to the mix or is
it effectively a pukka server? Win2K server in this case.

 

Win2K I don't know, but with assorted flavours of Linux *under* Win2K
it "does what it says on the box".

Very nicely.

--
Nigel - Manufacturer of the "Champion-105" range of rearsets

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"

 

I've played with it at home, running Win2k Server and Linux under XP,
and, at the user level, I completely agree. I just don't have the
knowledge to argue a decent case at developer level, I may need to
insist on a trial run.

 

Well, I do an amount of development under it. And quite a bit of
static relinking to include external 3rd party libraries, together
with shared object library use.

But I'd agree a trial run would be smart.

Here endeth my knowledge.

--
Nigel - Manufacturer of the "Champion-105" range of rearsets

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"

 

We use VMWare *extensively* at my place - probably got over a hundred
virtual servers running at the moment. It's a cracking product, and
has massively reduced our hardware cost, and given us a load of other
benefits:
- easy rollback (as you noted)
- portability (hardware a bit busy? Just move a VM or 2 elsewhere)
- cloning - build a copy of a server from an other one

However, we only use the GSX "server" version, not the (much cheaper)
work station version. The problem with the workstation version, as I
understand it, is that only one person can access it at a time.

hth

 

That helps a lot, thanks. We haven't explored it in depth yet, but I
was thinking that each developer could have their own copy of the DB
running in a virtual server for dev and retain a single, controlled
central DB for testing against, so single access would be fine.

cheers,

 

Thanks, as per my response to Champ, it was my suggestion that we
retain a conventional test environment with a real server which would
alleviate a lot of that risk.

The other option, of course, would be to attack the root cause of the
problem, which is the POS which is the central DB. However, I suspect
that the current contractual obligations around it are too tight.

 

In message <>, "Higgins@work"

VMWare works for serving W2K. If it didn't my place couldn't run them in
the production environment. Tell the customer to stop being a poof.

 

Well, since the DB is related to command and control information
systems, the customer has a valid reason to ask questions.

However, this discussion is between me and the developers at this
point, it hasn't got as far as the customer yet.

 

<snip>

We use orkstation exclusively at our place. Build a Win2k VM on any
desktop and it'll be seen on the network as a completely separate
server. For development and testing purposes as Champ has suggested
it utterly rocks. Just get the budget holder to look into the TCO
compared with physical tin and they'll have their cheque book out in
minutes.

Only downside is the developer machines need 512mb RAM minimum. I've
got four times that in my home machines but the number of clients I
visit with developers trying to run VS.NET on 128mb is staggering so
worth a mention.

Also remember you still need licenses for the software you stick on
them and when they are built make sure they're properly patched and
secured. The same 128mb clients seem oblivious to the fact that the
VM is as prone to attack/infection as any other machine on the
network.

 

Now where did I put that Warhammer?

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That would be me then. I just need to convince the lackeys.