<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://port25.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Why Virtualization Is So Darn Popular</title><link>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/22/Why-Virtualization-is-so-darn-popular.aspx</link><description>Just returning from Linux World in San Francisco, and virtualization was once again the topic du jour. A lot of you outside of the technology vendor-sphere (where we like to speak in weird acronyms and corporate buzzwords), might wonder why Microsoft</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 40109.1145)</generator><item><title>re: Why Virtualization Is So Darn Popular</title><link>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/22/Why-Virtualization-is-so-darn-popular.aspx#2983</link><pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:19:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">af7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:2983</guid><dc:creator>davidmeyer</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Let me tell you our story. &amp;nbsp;At my company we run A LOT of virtual macines. &amp;nbsp;We started off on VMware's GSX server running on Dell 6600's with 32GB of memory. &amp;nbsp;Even with that much ram we didn't have the ability to recognize the benefits of the machine. &amp;nbsp;So, we switched all of these boxes to VMware's ESX server. &amp;nbsp;Now we have our machines fully utilized and with all of the VM suite tools from VMware and CA (NSM and ASM) we have a rock solid environment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I'd be curious to know why I should switch to MS Virtual Server. &amp;nbsp;What do you give me that ESX server doesn't? &amp;nbsp;One of the reasons we switched was because of the overhead that Server 2003 required as compared to ESX. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Is there a plan to address this issue?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2983" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Why Virtualization Is So Darn Popular</title><link>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/22/Why-Virtualization-is-so-darn-popular.aspx#2966</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:45:50 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">af7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:2966</guid><dc:creator>rhorn</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;It's clear from the article on the XenSource and Microsoft partnership that Microsoft is making it easier for XenSource to port Xen itself to Longhorn, thus allowing Xen-enabled OSes to run on top of Longhorn, but there is still many of us that would like to run Longhorn as a guest inside Linux or other Xen supported hosts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It's not clear from that article that Microsoft is making it easier for Xen to do just that. &amp;nbsp;Granted, the VT-enabled hardware from both AMD and Intel should allow for any guest OS in an unmodified form, but what about slightly older hardware without this technology? &amp;nbsp;Will Microsoft sell a Xen-aware version of Longhorn (or maybe even Vista)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2966" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Why Virtualization Is So Darn Popular</title><link>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/22/Why-Virtualization-is-so-darn-popular.aspx#2957</link><pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:21:08 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">af7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:2957</guid><dc:creator>Cay</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Sadly there is no comment on the different design of the hyper visor in this article which really makes the differences on security, capacity management and true segmentation of resources&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2957" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Why Virtualization Is So Darn Popular</title><link>http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/08/22/Why-Virtualization-is-so-darn-popular.aspx#2955</link><pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:43:07 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">af7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:2955</guid><dc:creator>VirtuStream</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I'd be interested to know what your take is on the few companies out there that are &amp;quot;streaming&amp;quot; operating systems and applications over the network without compromising bandwidth, without requiring proprietary hardware, and bypassing PC and server hard drives altogether.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2955" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>