Re: [PLUG] small business server virtualization?

[Andrew Libby <andrew.libby@gmail.com>]

One technology I used a bit up until about a year ago is called ProxMox.
If you're looking to just run, and have decent gui's to manage your VMs,
proxmox is worth looking into.  I've also run a bunch of KVM, which I
also like a lot.  Proxmox is a snap.

I also echo the sentiments about containers, if you can make use of
them, they're pretty clutch.

https://www.proxmox.com/en/

Andy


On 11/6/17 1:08 PM, Greg Helledy wrote:
> Does the overhead of virtualization make sense for small organizations?
> We have various applications running on two physical servers and run
> into the situation where two or more applications need Apache so
> configuration of one potentially interferes with configuration of
> another.  And likewise, upgrades or maintenance of one application
> require the server to be taken offline for a while, cutting off access
> to others.
> Can it make sense to virtualize so that each application has its own OS
> instance, which can be powered on and off, upgraded, etc. independently,
> for a small business?
> 
> It looks like VMWare's vSphere Essentials would run us $500 or so a
> year, is it worth it to pay that?  What's the best alternative as a
> bare-metal hypervisor, Xen?  KVM is a no-go because we have to be able
> to do Windows servers, too.
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug