Uh, my servers with at least 256G of RAM and a raid60 of more drives than you have virtual machines can't easily be moved around.
> If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply.
Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance!
Single function bare metal, that is. At which point, the boring functional naming scheme re-applies easily.
If you're running multiple different functions on a single box, how are you guaranteeing any performance for any single function? How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features?
Depends on what you think is the most costly: kernel control of processes, or hypervisor control of kernels controlling processes.
Based on my experience, no hypervisor is worth the trouble if you have the budget for dedicated servers.
> If you're running multiple different functions on a single box
The thing is, you don't do that unless you must.
If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply.
As a side note: a long time ago (before I knew what I was doing) I ran a Windows Server environment for my dad's business. The main server was Jake and the off-site backup was Elwood.