I *had* the entire computer lab go down when the network failed once.  That's when I switched it all to local desktops.  The security was way easier to manage with a hosted desktop (I basically didn't have to manage it at all) but we weren't set up to offer any alternative when the network server hiccupped.   It took me a lot of time to learn how to set up adequate security on an individual desktop, but once I got a good profile set up, I copied the image to all the other PCs and we were set.  There weren't any equipment cost differences either way, as I recall.

On moving things to the cloud, I'm still leery, especially after that Amazon thing a few months ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1379474/Web-chaos-Amazon-cloud-failure-crashes-major-websites-Playstation-Network-goes-AGAIN.html



Genny Engel
Internet Librarian
Sonoma County Library
[log in to unmask]
www.sonomalibrary.org
707 545-0831 x581

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Madrigal, Juan A
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Trends with virtualization

Its true what they say, history does repeat itself! I don't see how
virtualization is much different from
a dummy terminal connected to a mainframe. I'd hate to see an entire
computer lab go down should the network fail.

The only real promise is for making web development and server management
easier.

Vmware is looking to make thing easier with CloudFoundry
http://cloudfoundry.org/ along
with Activestate and Stackato http://www.activestate.com/cloud

I definitely want to take those two out for a test run. Deployment looks
dead simple.

Juan Madrigal


Web Developer
Web and Emerging Technologies
University of Miami
Richter Library





On 7/11/11 10:38 AM, "Nate Vack" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Karen Schneider <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> My down-home-country-librarian observation that I always tack on (with
>> plenty of disclaimers) is "If virtualization were the answer, we'd see
>>more
>> of it by now."
>
>This.
>
>Various vendors have been pushing the "run all your desktops in the
>server room and export your I/O over ethernet" solution for a long
>time. Heck, X11 does exactly this, and it's as old as the original
>Macintosh.
>
>I suspect the problems partly come down to the end-user experience
>(performance, customizability, etc) and partly the fact that making an
>environment truly truly homogeneous is not completely realistic in
>most environments. Once you've gone the "everything will be
>virtualized" route, making one desktop setup just a little different
>(adding custom hardware, etc) is nearly impossible.
>
>So it winds up making more sense to find a solution that lets you
>cost-effectively manage lots of desktops, because that solves your
>actual business needs, not what IT wishes your business needs were.
>
>That, and the fact that the parts of desktop hardware that usually
>fail tend to be the things people spend time touching with their dirty
>fingers and pouring their coffee on. Disks and motherboards do fail,
>but if you've done your homework right, you should be able to swap
>another one in within minutes -- and thin clients can fail, too. So
>virtualizing doesn't get you out of the business of heading out to
>replace gear.
>
>And desktop PCs are dead cheap and you can buy them from anyone.
>Custom virtual solutions usually want you to source from one vendor.
>
>That said: we do love virtualization for delivering Windows apps to
>Macs and Linux clients. Sometimes, there's just no substitute for SPSS
>on Windows.
>
>-n