>You may be able to split up some of the servers into multiple VMs -- maybe >five >servers with five VMs each.
I'm not sure I see the merit in this. VMs seem to be regarded as a magic bullet (i.e. free lunch). I don't know of any case where 5 VMs can accomplish more work on one processor than simply letting the processor manage it all (except if the OS and or application can't efficiently split the task into the necessary multiple threads, which I don't think is an issue here). By definition, the total accomplished must be less with VMs, because the hypervisor will take some CPU cycles. Wilton
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
