[atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Colin Johnston
colinj at mx5.org.uk
Tue Nov 10 13:36:41 CET 2015
> On 10 Nov 2015, at 12:20, Wilfried Woeber <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote: > > > On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote: > >> ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. >> What do you think about this ? > > I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more > capable and more stable than the candy probes. Messing around with that > concept should not be done, imho. > >> Just my 2 cents .-) > > ...same here :-) > > Wilfried > > PS: I myself do see the beauty of the idea to virtualize the (candy-)probes, > but I have - already a while ago - been convinced that the data generated > by them should *not* be mixed in with the data from those under full NCC > control. And whether those VM probes should even be catalogued by the NCC > is another open question. After having lived and still work in a Solaris physical metal land, I took onboard the virtual machine world for a webservice/emailservice. The virtual world is cheaper in long run. However does require a vm/ov image. I think it is important cloud as such as machines are monitored and I thought vm probe would for great for that Colin
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]