Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?
by Spyplane on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @12:21PM
(#2781575)
We tested it at my last job maybe 5 months ago and it was a complete failure. Granted we didn't spend a lot of cycles on it, but we saw how slow it was and went back to native hardware pretty quick.
Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?
by absconditus on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @01:34PM
(#2782035)
What exactly would be gained by using VMs, assuming that there were no performance problem?
Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?
by tedunangst on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @06:30PM
(#2783426)
The boss gets to put "lead the conversion to a virtualized environment" on his resume. True story.
Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?
by Joeri on Tuesday July 19, 2011 @04:56PM
(#2783036)
Two reasons:
- Easy migration between hardware configurations of a running system.
- Snapshots to revert quicker after a failed upgrade / change. (Typically in addition to traditional backups.)
Re:Why doesn't every company buy developers the best hardware?
by rch on Wednesday July 20, 2011 @08:48AM
(#2785221)
My case was for a heterogeneous build environment, where separate environments needed to be maintained for different developer groups.
It would have been a good fit for VMs.. except for the performance.
A friend of mine tested it 3 years ago and it was something like 300% slower (no idea about the disk config, but he's a smart guy). It would have been worth it at anything under about a %50 hit...