The other obvious - it potentially makes your server management much easier, particularly if you need a lot of computing power, or lots of servers quickly.
Basically, it allows you to requisition servers more quickly by providing a baseline system. If you're not doing scalable-on-demand work (and most of us aren't), it's not that useful.
The big one is convenience: if you need to do some quick maintenance from a computer you're not usually using, it's fast and easy to do so here (e.g. if you want to administer your server from a firewalled work PC, or from your parents' house).
It allows for easy live migrations for maintenance, and allows us to build VMs that are happily 100% oblivious of the underlying hardware. While most of our servers are split into multiple VMs, we consistently deploy new hardware with VMs even if they're intended for a single function simply because of consistency and ease of maintenance.
For one, you can use your compute resources much more elasticly. You can create and delete VMs on demand and don't need to drive to the colo to reimage.
My impression is that it makes deploying your 100th server much easier, at the cost of making your first several much harder. If you're going to have 100+ servers, that's probably worth it. If you're not (and most companies aren't), then it's like getting your CDL so that you can go to the grocery store in a semi-tractor trailer, when you should have driven there in a compact car.
reply