Linus Torvalds: Virtualization Sucks
Well, maybe he wasn't quite that blunt about it. But the inescapable conclusion from reading his email on the topic is that he doesn't feel the technology provides significant benefits and that it poses significant challenges in the area of device drivers.
Well, it's certainly understandable that he would be sensitive regarding device drivers, which have been the bane of Linux for a long time. Getting vendors to make Linux drivers available, providing source code for their drivers -- it's been such a nightmare that the Linux community has offered to write the drivers for vendors; all the vendors have to do is offer documentation on their device interfaces.
So, the downside of virtualization from Torvalds' perspective is certainly understandable. Less understandable is his perspective that the technology really doesn't offer any benefit.
My initial thought was that this is based on his experience with Linux running production payloads. From this perspective, virtualizing Windows makes a ton of sense; the fragility of the OS, particularly older variants, makes the "one app, one server" policy very comprehensible -- simply put, placing multiple apps on a single Windows server poses too much risk, since one misbehaving app can bring down the entire server, affecting all other apps on the machine. Consequently, virtualization helps IT organizations move beyond servers hosting one application and running at perhaps 10% utilization.
Linux, however, is much more robust and therefore less likely to crash as a result of app misbehavior (or, indeed, OS misbehavior). So my assumption was that Torvalds' attitude was based on experience indicating that Linux hosts routinely host multiple applications and achieve higher utilization rates, thereby negating the need to consolidate servers in order to avoid low utilization.
In discussing this with a friend who works at Red Hat and whose job entails working with large companies, he indicated that the scenario of "many apps, one Linux server" really isn't that common.
Firstly, most applications are written assuming they will have sole control of the machine, making it hard for multiple applications to share a server.
Secondly, and more troubling, every application defines its particular certified environment: a certain version of Apache, a certain version of JBoss (or, perhaps, WebSphere), and so on. And if a second app needs a different version of those components? Well, now it's easy to understand why Linux systems continue the
Print
Well, it's certainly understandable that he would be sensitive regarding device drivers, which have been the bane of Linux for a long time. Getting vendors to make Linux drivers available, providing source code for their drivers -- it's been such a nightmare that the Linux community has offered to write the drivers for vendors; all the vendors have to do is offer documentation on their device interfaces.
So, the downside of virtualization from Torvalds' perspective is certainly understandable. Less understandable is his perspective that the technology really doesn't offer any benefit.
My initial thought was that this is based on his experience with Linux running production payloads. From this perspective, virtualizing Windows makes a ton of sense; the fragility of the OS, particularly older variants, makes the "one app, one server" policy very comprehensible -- simply put, placing multiple apps on a single Windows server poses too much risk, since one misbehaving app can bring down the entire server, affecting all other apps on the machine. Consequently, virtualization helps IT organizations move beyond servers hosting one application and running at perhaps 10% utilization.
Linux, however, is much more robust and therefore less likely to crash as a result of app misbehavior (or, indeed, OS misbehavior). So my assumption was that Torvalds' attitude was based on experience indicating that Linux hosts routinely host multiple applications and achieve higher utilization rates, thereby negating the need to consolidate servers in order to avoid low utilization.
In discussing this with a friend who works at Red Hat and whose job entails working with large companies, he indicated that the scenario of "many apps, one Linux server" really isn't that common.
Firstly, most applications are written assuming they will have sole control of the machine, making it hard for multiple applications to share a server.
Secondly, and more troubling, every application defines its particular certified environment: a certain version of Apache, a certain version of JBoss (or, perhaps, WebSphere), and so on. And if a second app needs a different version of those components? Well, now it's easy to understand why Linux systems continue the
Previous Post: Gates: I Hate it when Google Copies My StrategyNext Post: XenSource and Citrix Get Hitched: An *Interesting* Marriage
Most Discussed Posts
Cloud computing has emerged as one of the most significant game changers to hit the technology landscape in the past 20 years. With this massive expansion of the cloud, the perception of the IT organization is shifting from a utility player to a change agent. This eBook breaks down five ways progressive organizations are using cloud-based IT Management solutions to help drive innovation and become more strategic, including: adding visibility and analytics, speeding up time-to-value, lowering costs, improving prioritization, and providing a blueprint for future cloud deployments.
Read the white paper to see how IBM helped Citigroup deliver new services and enhancements to their 200 million customers faster.
There are 3 ways to modernize legacy applications: rewrite completely, acquire packaged solutions or migrate existing code. This paper explains why it's best to migrate and how IBM® Rational® software can help.
Accommodating specific lines of business can result in a hybrid ecosystem of applications and servers. The resulting complexity of this architecture makes for an environment that is costly to maintain and difficult to change when addressing new challenges.
This whitepaper will help you to define a mobile device passcode policy. Security managers must attempt to reconcile two opposing goals. They must: 1) create a passcode policy that is strong enough to protect the device if it is lost or stolen, while: 2) not annoying users with needless length or complexity.
This whitepaper, authored by The Radicati Group, looks at the key reasons organizations should consider moving to a cloud-based archiving solution. Email archiving solutions enable organizations to store, monitor, and collect electronic data exchanged by their users to comply with internal policies and regulations.
ATERNITY will showcase a 30-minute demo on how Fortune 500 companies are leveraging its award-winning FPI Platform to deliver a user-centric approach to Proactive IT Management.
For businesses to move forward and tap into the ever-expanding universe of Internet users and network-enabled devices, it's critical to learn how to make the transition to IPv6. Learn the critical steps your organization must take to make a seamless transition-and keep your business world connected.
Learn how IT teams can protect against spear phishing tactics. Harry Sverdlove, chief technology officer of Bit9 offers a frank discussion about spear phishing - the most common technique used in today's advanced attacks.
Learn how to build a solid business case for your migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux so you can run leaner, innovate faster, be more flexible and own the New Now.
Social media isn't about you; it's about everything around you. As you consider how your customers want to communicate with you, social media is something that can't be ignored. But what should your strategy be? Is social media "just another channel?" What kind of a plan makes sense for your contact center and for your customers? Join our experts as they share their insight and research results.
Hardware tokens were a popular method of strong authentication in past years but the cumbersome provisioning and distribution tasks, high support requirements and replacement costs have limited their growth. The additional log-in steps that hardware tokens require and the resulting user frustrations have limited adoption and make them impractical for larger scale partner and customer applications.
Sponsored Links
