Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer
-
@scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@mary said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
I thought an OS memory usage was not that high...is this not the case?
Define "not that high?" Let's take Windows for example, a Windows system doing any normal amount of tasks will use at least 2GB while basically idle and easily 4GB if doing anything, and easily 6-8GB if you are just surfing the web a lot. A typical computer today comes with either 8GB or 16GB of RAM.
So if you are virtualizing a system, it needs exactly the same amount of RAM as a physical system. So if your virtual system needs a minimum of 4GB and practically needs more like 8GB, and you run two of those on top of your existing system which itself needs close to 8GB, suddenly you need 24GB total, so the numbers get really big, really fast.
Now if you are using Ubuntu Linux and don't run a graphical desktop, you could get a virtual system up and running with maybe 400MB of RAM, a very, very far cry from 4GB. So it all depends what you are doing.
You aren't comparing correctly... you mention high usage of RAM in Windows when using a web browser and GUI, and compare it to a GUIless Linux server doing nothing running at 400MB RAM... That isn't a fair comparison. You also need to compare it to an Ubuntu Linux workstation with default GUI (Gnome) running a web browser. They will both require a ton of RAM there...
No system is very useful with the minimum amount of memory to be "up and running" as you say.
I have seen a number of Windows servers with GUIs running idle at the minimum 512MB RAM in Hyper-V, and not go up much higher periodically even when they are DCs.
As soon as you have the Linux/Windows box or VM doing anything useful, the "up and running on 400MB RAM" is no longer so... It's nice and all that GUIless Linux server can be up and running on 400 MB RAM usage, which is much better than Windows, but if we're talking GUIless, then I'm assuming servers. If that's the case, it's safe to assume the Windows server is GUIless as well and is also running with low RAM usage when "just up and running".
-
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
As soon as you have the Linux/Windows box or VM doing anything useful, the "up and running on 400MB RAM" is no longer so...
That's totally not true. You can do things like email servers, web servers, DNS servers, even PBX with 400MB of RAM. It's tight and not ideal, but totally doable in the real world.
That's my point, from the Windows world, that's an "idle" number. But on Linux, idle is more likely around 80MB and 400MB is more of a "with usage."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
You can do things like email servers, web servers, DNS servers, even PBX with 400MB of RAM. It's tight and not ideal, but totally doable in the real world.
Doable? Sure. But definitely not practical at any kind of real scale. Could some SMB run their DNS server or little web server on a GUI-less Linux server with 400MB RAM, definitely! And very likely done in most of them! That's likely the way to go vs Windows... wtf would anyone use Windows to do that?
HOWEVER, that was not my main point.... I suppose I should have each paragraph as it's own reply.
-
@Obsolesce Windows Server Core is not really able to be utilized in the same ways as your typical linux server. Many of Microsoft's own features are not supported on core (at least that used to be the case). I am sure Microsoft continues to add features for it to support additional MS product and services, but what is the real use case?
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server? Even Microsoft is pushing SQL server on Linux vs their own server platform. I have gotten so many emails from Microsoft almost begging people to run SQL server on Linux. The only real world cases to run server core are with domain controllers , dns servers, dhcp ,etc. Those were the real use cases behind core. 95% of your Windows admins are terrified of core servers, though. It is just fact. I have seen it everywhere I have worked.
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server? Even Microsoft is pushing SQL server on Linux vs their own server platform. I have gotten so many emails from Microsoft almost begging people to run SQL server on Linux. The only real world cases to run server core are with domain controllers , dns servers, dhcp ,etc. Those were the real use cases behind core. 95% of your Windows admins are terrified of core servers, though. It is just fact. I have seen it everywhere I have worked.
It's true. The same factor that makes the majority of companies choose Windows (because they think that finding GUI only Windows admins is easy and everything else is hard) makes them refuse Windows Core installs. Literally every Windows GUI-less admin that I know is a Linux admin, too. So essentially, to be able to run Core you need all the cost of a Linux admin, but without the benefits of Linux from a licensing standpoint.
-
I tried to find benchmarks comparing Windows Server with Windows Server core and Linux but I was unable to find anything after a few minutes of using duckduckgo.
I dont think any organizations are even really testing this and making any real effort towards this. I have seen organizations deploy core for AD type servers and even in those cases Core seems to be in the minority. There is no reason to have a GUI on a domain controller. It is extremely stupid when you think about it, yet almost everyone does it.
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Many of Microsoft's own features are not supported on core
Like what? Core does everything I can think of... Are you thinking of Nano?
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server?
Nobody in their right mind would do that. Again, like Scott, why add in things that were never part of any point?
Let me refresh the point:
- Scott originally compared full blown Windows Desktop GUI plus web browser and other app RAM usage, to a minimal gui-less Linux server RAM usage.
This was what I was arguing against, that the comparison was not fair and was not set up correctly.
-
Everything else was a Strawman.
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
I tried to find benchmarks comparing Windows Server with Windows Server core and Linux but I was unable to find anything after a few minutes of using duckduckgo.
I dont think any organizations are even really testing this and making any real effort towards this. I have seen organizations deploy core for AD type servers and even in those cases Core seems to be in the minority. There is no reason to have a GUI on a domain controller. It is extremely stupid when you think about it, yet almost everyone does it.
We deploy core, but only for the cases you mention. And most of our customers don't want it because they feel no Windows admin could use it.
-
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server?
Nobody in their right mind would do that. Again, like Scott, why add in things that were never part of any point?
Let me refresh the point:
- Scott originally compared full blown Windows Desktop GUI plus web browser and other app RAM usage, to a minimal gui-less Linux server RAM usage.
This was what I was arguing against, that the comparison was not fair and was not set up correctly.
Except I was specifically making the comparison on use case, not on technology. So the bases for your correction doesn't make sense. I pointed out that one was assumed to have a GUI and be used graphically, and one was assumed to be a headless server. So my comparison wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was use case vs. use case.
-
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Everything else was a Strawman.
So keeping things equal:
a) Fresh Windows 10 + Google Chrome web browsing
b) Fresh Ubuntu Workstation (Gnome) + Google Chrome web browsing.a) Fedora Server minimal install + (FLAMP)
b) There is no Windows equivalent... Linux is the pure winner here by lack of Windows equivalent. -
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Many of Microsoft's own features are not supported on core
Like what? Core does everything I can think of... Are you thinking of Nano?
Yes I must have been thinking of nano. I have been a Windows admin in awhile. I know 2012 Core was missing features, it does look like 2016 does have nearly everything.
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Many of Microsoft's own features are not supported on core
Like what? Core does everything I can think of... Are you thinking of Nano?
Yes I must have been thinking of nano. I have been a Windows admin in awhile. I know 2012 Core was missing features, it does look like 2016 does have nearly everything.
Has nearly everything, but still tons and tons of Windows-only workloads don't run on it. Try running a QuickBooks server or a AviMark server on Core. Don't think that it works. Microsoft's own tools work, yeah. But Windows exists essentially exclusively for the third party ecosystem which almost always demands a GUI. Linux could have that same problem, but its ecosystem of users simply wouldn't put up with that, and it is that user base that has protected it and not Windows.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server?
Nobody in their right mind would do that. Again, like Scott, why add in things that were never part of any point?
Let me refresh the point:
- Scott originally compared full blown Windows Desktop GUI plus web browser and other app RAM usage, to a minimal gui-less Linux server RAM usage.
This was what I was arguing against, that the comparison was not fair and was not set up correctly.
Except I was specifically making the comparison on use case, not on technology. So the bases for your correction doesn't make sense. I pointed out that one was assumed to have a GUI and be used graphically, and one was assumed to be a headless server. So my comparison wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was use case vs. use case.
What use case comparison involves Windows GUI + web browsing versus GUI-less Linux minimal install?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Many of Microsoft's own features are not supported on core
Like what? Core does everything I can think of... Are you thinking of Nano?
Yes I must have been thinking of nano. I have been a Windows admin in awhile. I know 2012 Core was missing features, it does look like 2016 does have nearly everything.
Has nearly everything, but still tons and tons of Windows-only workloads don't run on it. Try running a QuickBooks server or a AviMark server on Core. Don't think that it works. Microsoft's own tools work, yeah. But Windows exists essentially exclusively for the third party ecosystem which almost always demands a GUI. Linux could have that same problem, but its ecosystem of users simply wouldn't put up with that, and it is that user base that has protected it and not Windows.
Right no vendor supports it. Because they are equally scared of it. It only works for windows services.
-
@Obsolesce what percentage of your windows servers for domain services are core at where you work now? I would assume less than 50%
-
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce what percentage of your windows servers for domain services are core at where you work now? I would assume less than 50%
100%
-
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce what percentage of your windows servers for domain services are core at where you work now? I would assume less than 50%
100%
-
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@scottalanmiller said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@Obsolesce said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
@IRJ said in Client-side Virtualization - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Who would license Windows Server to run an inefficient web server?
Nobody in their right mind would do that. Again, like Scott, why add in things that were never part of any point?
Let me refresh the point:
- Scott originally compared full blown Windows Desktop GUI plus web browser and other app RAM usage, to a minimal gui-less Linux server RAM usage.
This was what I was arguing against, that the comparison was not fair and was not set up correctly.
Except I was specifically making the comparison on use case, not on technology. So the bases for your correction doesn't make sense. I pointed out that one was assumed to have a GUI and be used graphically, and one was assumed to be a headless server. So my comparison wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was use case vs. use case.
What use case comparison involves Windows GUI + web browsing versus GUI-less Linux minimal install?
Lots. Like when you are using RDS versus using a PBX.
It's that we are comparing different use cases is the point. Not comparing the same use case in two different places.
