OnHub
-
@johnhooks said:
Like a hypervisor?
not sure what you mean. How does a hypervisor put lots of things on one device?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Like a hypervisor?
not sure what you mean. How does a hypervisor put lots of things on one device?
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
-
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
That is not even close to the same thing and being intentionally obtuse about the discussion.
-
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
Physical device is not the same as mixing code or functions in a single container. Hypervisor also does not imply running multiple VMs, only hardware abstraction. HA doesn't change anything that I can tell, not sure what you were meaning by that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Multiple vms on one physical device, unless you have HA.
Physical device is not the same as mixing code or functions in a single container. Hypervisor also does not imply running multiple VMs, only hardware abstraction. HA doesn't change anything that I can tell, not sure what you were meaning by that.
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
-
@johnhooks said:
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I was assuming he meant it was a single point of failure, which is why I said that.
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
Oh OK. Makes sense. Sorry @JaredBusch I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I promise.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
Ha like Synology putting web servers and DNS servers on their NAS units?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, it's about mixing workloads. There is a lot of value to "do one thing, do it well." UTMs don't do this. Everything is mashed onto one box. Rather like people throwing every little workload onto a NAS. It isn't designed for that.
*cough* Synology *cough*
-
@JaredBusch said:
*cough* Synology *cough*
Yeah, but all of them in that general category do it too. None of them advise it, all of them allow it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, but all of them in that general category do it too. None of them advise it, all of them allow it.
Not a single one I have seen takes it as far as Synology though.
-
They do get pretty extreme with it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, but all of them in that general category do it too. None of them advise it, all of them allow it.
Not a single one I have seen takes it as far as Synology though.
Haha this is too far?
-
ReadyNAS has an awful lot too.
-
@johnhooks Oh good grief I thought you had all that installed on yours for a sec and I almost wept for your users lol
-
@MattSpeller said:
@johnhooks Oh good grief I thought you had all that installed on yours for a sec and I almost wept for your users lol
hahaha. I can't believe someone would use that for a directory server or mail server. I kind of want to see what would happen if you turn everything on.
-
@johnhooks Synology's best Chernobyl impression no doubt
-
@MattSpeller I just told my wife this last night. It's funny how avatars change perception of things. Every post I read of yours comes out in a Ron Swanson voice in my head. I love it.
-
@johnhooks By using his pic for my avatar I hope to one day gain some of the powers he keeps in his moustache.
