this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

9499 readers
232 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago (4 children)
  • Man, it’s so annoying to have to use multiple machines because one isn’t beefy enough!
  • We can now shove the hardware of 10 machines into one, making it the beefiest!
  • Man, it’s so annoying to have to use such a beefy machine!
  • We can now divide a beefy machine into 10 mediocre ones, just like you always wanted!

Make it make sense to me.

[–] entwine@programming.dev 8 points 6 hours ago

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the point of this is to reduce overhead associated with virtualization (aka VMs). Few workloads are able to take advantage of the massive compute resources that a single beefy machine has, so partitioning it is the most efficient use of resources, especially in data centers where maximizing efficiency is important.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago

Why keep ten machines when you can do the same job with one?

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Sometimes you have different use cases. One beefy machine is likely more energy efficient. Many small machines allows reuse of old hardware.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

I wish we'd get a proper microkernel, instead. If we're going to accept some performance degradation, let's get some benefit from it.

Again: I have high hopes for Redox.