Have you heard about the new Nano? No, you didn’t miss a new announcement from Apple. Rather, it is Microsoft that is releasing Nano into the wild. Given the name, what do you think Nano is? Dictionary.com defines Nano as “a combining form with the meaning ‘very small, minute.’” Unsurprisingly, Nano is another option for a stripped-down, lightweight install mode feature.
Articles Tagged with Server
With the sale of its x86 server division for $2.3B, IBM exits the marketplace it started in the early 1980s. Some have argued that this is a good move for IBM and tolls the death knell for the x86 server marketplace. “Well, if IBM is closing shop, surely the end is nigh. What with all that virtualization malarkey, nobody is purchasing x86-based servers anymore.” While it is true that the glory days may be behind for a company based on server hardware due to the consolidation of large numbers of compute entities on single-host servers, there is still a significant marketplace for x86 servers: according to IT Candor, over $46B in 2013. Although the server market suffered its third quarter of revenue decline, dropping 4%, actual numbers shipped increased by 2%. The plain fact is that people are still buying x86-based servers.
I have spent a great deal of time lately working with the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS). This computing platform is really quite impressive with its power and flexibility, but my expectations about the platform have really changed since I completed the UCS training. During the training classes that I attended, both the design and install courses emphasized that the Cisco UCS platform would be a collaborative platform that would bring the different groups like Storage, Network, and Server each working their own functional area of responsibility within UCS based on role permissions. That sounded great. The network team can create and trunk the VLANS and the storage team could add the boot targets as well as assign the LUNS. This platform is a true collective effort by all teams right?
There have been several interesting posts in the blogosphere about virtualization security and how to measure it. Specifically, the discussions are really about the size of the hypervisor footprint or about the size of patches. But hypervisor footprints from a security perspective are neither of these. The concern when dealing with hypervisor security is about Risk, not about the size of the hypervisor or the size of a patch it is purely about the Risks associated with the hypervisor in terms if confidentiality, availability, and integrity. Vendors who claim that security is proportional to the size (in GBs) of the hypervisor footprint are spreading FUD.