Although I kicked the article because it is somewhat informative, it's also obviously a sales pitch and quite bias. We run a number of virtual machines where i work and let me tell you I definitely would disagree with a number of these statements. I could go on forever on this topic but let me make a few things clear:
- The downtime I find VERY hard to believe. We have our virtual servers not necessarily go DOWN a lot, but they certainly aren't even close to as RELIABLE as our physical servers. There is always a "glitch" happening on a daily basis that needs to be addressed.
- The cost of virtual is intriguing. However, with the cost of hardware decreasing on a daily basis, I'm not sure why the push for virtual is so high right now. It certainly should be at this point in time, but in a year....will the cost really be a factor?
These are just a couple of the points that immediately jumped out at me reading this. Something to consider as a non biased user of virtual machines. I won't deny some of the other benefits pointed out in the article.
I think you're going to see the majority of innovation happen in or near virtual servers going forward. And so especially for the programmer who is at a small shop without an ops department, virtual servers are going to be the way to go.
In all my start ups and projects there always comes this 2 to 3 day stoppable as maintenance and other server upgrades take place. And that's only if the programmer has a pretty good knowledge of ops. Usually I find they need to go get a buddy to help them out.
But more to the point, I think you'll see the add on services for a virtual server far outstrip those of physical server.
As far as this article, the point is that with a VPS you do essentially get your own server versus being on a shared server which doesn't let you have as many configuration options.
Commenting on Stories is limited for now and will open up to those recommended by the community. Learn how