Hello,
On a Linux server, you want to run a number of services such as Apache, Nginx, Redis, etc. Do you use virtualization like Xen hypervisor or container like Docker?

Thank you.

yes,
sometimes

Hello,
Thank you so much for your reply.
Does that mean you use both? When do you use virtualization and when do you use containers?

I work at a really huge company, like Microsoft or IBM. We produce software and we install our software into VMs.
But actually we use containers to produce those software.
At home, if I want to try something usually I do it in VM or in a container, it depends on the complexity and size of it.
In general both have advantages and disadvantages and there in no short answer to the question why. Each case is different
https://www.atlassian.com/microservi...tainers-vs-vms
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/differ...nd-containers/

1 members found this post helpful.

Virtualization when you have to, containers when you can.

Hi,
Thank you so much for your reply.
I can install a hypervisor on the server. Why virtualization?

Can you Google, what is Hypervisor?

There will be no virtualization, if there is no Hypervisor.

Hi,
Of Course. So?

I see you need virtualization in your Linux server, search for KVM, Ovirt or Qemu. your call to decide which one you want.

Hi,
Thank you so much for your reply.
How about the Xen hypervisor?

Obviously you can try anything you want. What is the goal of this thread?

The goal of this thread is that he's saving on reading up by asking question upon question.

2 members found this post helpful.

I once renovated a company's "several hundred websites" that were all actually run by one piece of software, moving it from a dying Apple server to "the cloud." They wanted me to use virtual machines, and I consented. But I later regretted that I did not, instead, push harder for containers.

All of the various systems ran on a single version of Linux. But, because I used VMs, I had to do things like "NFS filesystems" and a lot of redundant duplication between each of the (about a dozen, in the end) VMs. I also had to maintain Linux installations separately on each of them. Furthermore, I ran into the issue that the original vendor wasn't actually able to deliver on their original service contracts.

Containers, then, would have been much simpler – providing the necessary "isolation," which was all that this configuration actually needed. Looking back, I could have created a single, "honkin' big," virtual machine and then used containers for all the rest. I wouldn't have had to "pretend," nearly so much, that the equipment was actually "real." When, of course, none of it was.

1 members found this post helpful.

(The lesson that I didn't push hard enough ...): If your deployment does not actually require "multiple OS-distinct environments," then: "virtualization" turns out to be "overkill."

[Do you need virtual 'Windows' servers, and virtual 'Linux,' and virtual '(!?!)' servers, all at the same time?] (If so, God help ye ...)

Usually – as in my case – what you actually need is simply: "isolation." And, to these ends, "containers" are a clever illusion.

If your single server-type configuration simply consists of: "various environments that each need to be 'isolated,'" as is usually the case, then "containers" can effectively fill the bill at minimal cost.

Containers provide each client what they need to see, and each one (happily!) is none the wiser. None of them see "reality," and none of them care.

"Containerization" also gives rise to commercial services such as "Rackspace," which can "spin-up" and then "spin-down" container instances on moment-by-moment demand.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello,
Suppose you want to create a separate virtual machine for each service such as Nginx and PHP. How can you tell Nginx virtual machine to use another virtual machine to compile .php files? is this possible?