Comments on: SearchServerMisinformation.com http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/ Informed Virtualization Criticism Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:27:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Colin Steele http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/#comment-11992 Colin Steele Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:39:22 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=3697#comment-11992 As Rob said, SearchServerVirtualization.com did not take a stance on VMware memory overcommit or Hyper-V Dynamic Memory in this article. It was not an article on “Why Dynamic Memory is better than memory overcommit.” It was a face-off between two contributors who took different sides and shared their opinions.

Readers looking for the pro-VMware side did not need to “search elsewhere,” as Eric Gray wrote; that information was on the same page, in Eric Siebert’s portion of the face-off. The goal of this face-off, as with all of our articles, was to present all sides of a particular issue and let our readers decide what is best for them.

Colin Steele, Senior Site Editor
SearchServerVirtualization.com

]]> By: Matt McSpirit http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/#comment-11991 Matt McSpirit Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:33:48 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=3697#comment-11991 “Even worse, you can’t hot-remove RAM from a VM with Hyper-V Dynamic Memory; you must reboot a VM to reduce the amount of memory. Adding or removing memory from any running server is a bad idea”

What!?

Last time I checked, you can’t hot-remove RAM from either platform, hence the balloon driver pushes the non-required RAM out and thus makes it available elsewhere.

What is he on about?

]]> By: Rob McShinsky http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/#comment-11990 Rob McShinsky Fri, 17 Jun 2011 03:44:14 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=3697#comment-11990 I think you missed the point. Techtarget made no stance on these pieces. These come from two different “Contributors” from two different reference and experience points. I agree that some of the wording in the Hyper-V article is a bit aggressive in its proclamations of superiority, but I see you fail to be equally as (V)critical of the equally vague stabs at Dynamic Memory from the VMware article like:

“Hyper-V Dynamic Memory has some big problems”

and

“Microsoft’s memory management approach is very weak; the company should have once again copied what VMware does. If you’re going to innovate, do it right. Otherwise, just bite the bullet and emulate.”

These articles are perfect opinionated contraries of each other and have done exactly what Techtarget had hoped, spur on the rivalry.

]]> By: JoeC http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/#comment-11989 JoeC Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:39:15 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=3697#comment-11989 First, to borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, some vendors engage in quite a bit of terminological inexactitude to market inferior products.

Second, what often poses as investigative reporting is really just a regurgitation of press releases and marketing material.

]]> By: Fernando http://www.vcritical.com/2011/06/searchservermisinformation-com/#comment-11988 Fernando Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:21:27 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=3697#comment-11988 Wow, I am shocked to see how TechTarget can draw a so flawed conclusion.

]]>