Firstly I know nothing about Confluence, but have some experience of
running virtual infrastructures based on VMware.
That difference in performance suggest to me that you are somehow not
comparing like with like. The difference between physical and virtual
performance obviously depends on the resource requirements of the principal
application involved on the server. If these are being adequately provided
(CPU, RAM, I/O and Network bandwidth) then any performance degradation
should be very small; definitely not 60:1 degradation.
There is, no doubt, scope for pathological applications that go against all
expectations but I think that results in a question mark over the quality
of the application and it's unlikely to be the situation here.
David
____
David Rischmiller
Head, Technical Support Services Group Tel: 01865 273200
Oxford University Computing Services Fax: 01865 273275
13 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 6NN
UK
http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk
--On 08 June 2009 11:43 +0100 Paul Browning <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [Apologies for multiple sightings]
>
> We've been using Team-hosted Confluence as
> a wiki for the last year or so. On the whole
> it's been a success story.
>
> We're now looking at bringing it in-house
> and getting the benefits of Enterprise
> edition.
>
> Although Atlassian warn against running
> Confluence on a virtualised server, we
> have been shocked at the difference in
> performance on Solaris between a VMWare-hosted
> and physical server (7 minutes vs. 7 seconds
> start-up).
>
> Hss anyone had any success running Confluence
> in a a virtualised environment? I'd be grateful
> to learn of experiences.
>
> TIA
>
> Paul
|