|WikiProject Computing / Software|
Sometime ago JumpBox was removed as a reference to this article. (full disclosure, I work for JumpBox) We are a publisher of a specific type of virtual appliance(s) (including one for [Mediawiki) that are smaller and portable, compared to other examples like rPath. Should we be included in this article? If not, where within Wikipedia might me look into? Thanks
I think it woulode be better to delete the link 'Virtual Homepage'
I wonder if there should be some notes on disadvantages of using virtual appliances. Are there any that are significant? I assume client performance is one. - Red1 D Oon (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- No reference, and purely anecdotal, but a consultant told a colleague (yeah, it does sound like an urban myth!) that his company wouldn't run RDBMSs as virtual appliances. Personally I've run SVN within VMWare and it runs great, but SVN doesn't have high CPU demands - it tends to be IO-bound - compared to a production RDBMS. I'd suggest if you really, really need performance you'd want application running on a physical box; if manageability is more important then a virtual box is a good alternative. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Very uninformative article
This article is chock full of buzzwords, and the result is that it is completely unintelligible if you don't already know what a virtual appliance is. You can read the whole article, and still have no idea what a virtual appliance is. Frankly, the introductory paragraph of software appliance contains more useful information about virtual appliances than this article does.
Relationship to WAN optimization
This is little more than marketing. Yes, WAN optimization vendors offer their products as virtual appliances, but I don't think it warrants a section here.