Business Resource Center
Subscribe

KIPLINGER RECOMMENDS

Home > Going Green
 
 

EXECUTIVE POLL

Bernard Madoff, convicted of running an $65 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 150 years in jail. What’s your take on his punishment?

Too heavy. There’s no point having him die in jail.
About right.
Not nearly heavy enough.
Not sure
 
   view results
Compare Price Quotes 100+ Services
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 

OUR PREMIUM CONTENT


The Kiplinger Letter
 
 
 

CURRENT LETTER

 
The Kiplinger Washington Editors
July 2, 2009
 

Overhauling
Financial Regs

By year-end or so, Congress will give the nod to a major rewriting of the nation's financial regulatory system. This week’s Kiplinger Letter explores whether the package will do more harm than good and what lawmakers are likely to include.
 
CORRECTIONS

TRY THE LETTER:

Subscribe
| See Sample
 
YOUR FEEDBACK
SUBSCRIBERLOG: Got a topic you'd like to discuss? Or a problem or question? Please join our exclusive forum for Letter subscribers only.
 
ASK US: A Kiplinger Letter editor will promptly answer subscriber questions.
 
 
OPEN FORUM: Share your insights and analysis with other visitors.
 
I just attended a franchise seminar. The speaker represents a few hundred franchises that (he says) are hand picked. He has the prospect (aka victim?) answer some questions about themselves then he makes recomendations - based on your personality, capital situation, etc.. If you pick a franchise, then he does some due dilligence for you. If you both decide it's a good idea, he helps you get started. He says he offers this service free of charge, which means he gets a commission if he's able to sell you a franchise. Has anyone done this? Successfully? Unsuccessfully?
-- fender
 

New Servers Can Cut IT Costs

Consolidation of servers is a known way to slash IT costs. Now, new "virtualization" servers can boost efficiency even higher.
 
 
GreenBiz
GreenTips is a monthly Kiplinger Recommends feature from Greener World Media Inc., which writes environmental news and advice for business in a variety of Web-based publications, including GreenBiz.com, GreenerComputing, ClimateBiz and GreenerBuildings.

It's no secret that IT centers are often a company's worst and most expensive energy drain. And many of those firms are running out of space for their IT operations because of the equipment required to meet those power demands or other IT needs, such as more data storage capacity. To cut costs and avoid expanding or building new IT centers, an increasing number of businesses are turning to "virtualization" to get rid of old servers dedicated to just one application.

In this month's GreenTips column, IT expert Andrew Binstock discusses a promising new development that makes the process easier and even more efficient: servers built specifically for virtualization. Dell and Hewlett-Packard are leading the effort, and other hardware companies are following suit. Binstock tested two representative Dell servers to see how much of a difference it makes to use a virtualization server over a generic one. "These systems focus on the three areas that are most likely to affect application consolidation performance: They have lots of processor cores, lots of RAM, and lots of network bandwidth," he writes.

Binstock's overall conclusion is that any IT center ought to look into virtualization servers. His only caution is that for now, the benchmarking tools for measuring specifically how well these and other servers handle virtualization are relatively primitive, making it tough for IT managers to calculate just how much would be saved by upgrading to them. Improved benchmarking software could be on the way later this year, and he points readers to the best tools available now while explaining their individual drawbacks. "But in terms of absolute performance, for the time being, you'll have to do things the old-fashioned way: Examine feature sets and test the systems in-house, to the extent possible," Binstock says.

Read More

READER COMMENTS

Post a comment
 | 
Read all comments (3)


POSTED BY: jay (August 20, 2008 02:17 PM)
Wow, You're right about the considerations but that's a surprisingly myopic perspective on virtualization. You've too harrow a focus on vendor, hardware and technology perspectives. IBM's had z/VM on System z for about 60 years and PPC architectures as well and what about all the other virtualization solutions, e.g. Microsoft, Xen, KVM. Even discussing at a specific vendor level (e.g. Dell / HP) is the wrong focus. Instead you should really talk about energy (which you lead with), HA/DR and ROI considerations which will drive the rest of the discussion. It also misses the possible insights that "cloud computing" (EC2 for example) may bring bring to the conversation. It's a good start but this is why if you're serious about virtualization and consolidation, you don't get your IT consultation from articles.

POSTED BY: IT Guy (August 20, 2008 04:23 PM)
The downside is that when the virtual server crashes, all applications go down instead of just the one application on a dedicated server.

POSTED BY: Peter (August 22, 2008 05:39 PM)
Why does everyone think that every app has to run on a dedicated server? You know what can save even more power and money than virtualization?... Run both apps on one box without virtualization! There's typically no reason (save for security in some special cases) why your app, web and DB's can't all run on the same box, and you may even get a performance increase since there's 0ms of latency when communicating to the box itself (as opposed to connecting via IP)... Virtualization has it's place, but I'm getting tired of articles claiming it will solve all the world's computing problems and companies will save billions! Like all tools, it's good for some things, but can't do everything... Virtualization can help with consolidation in some cases, but it's not *required* for consolidation, and it's not the most efficient or cost effective solution in most cases.

SAVE, SHARE & DISCUSS:    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   
ADD HEADLINES: