After reading this article, I had a few dissenting thoughts, maybe someone will provide their perspective?
The article suggests not running critical workloads virtually based on a failure scenario of the hosting environment (such as ransomware on hypervisor).
That does allow using the ‘all your eggs in one basket’ phrase, so I agree that running at least one instance of a service physically could be justified, but threat actors will be trying to time execution of attacks against both if possible. Adding complexity works both ways here.
I don’t really agree with the comments about not patching however. The premise that the physical workload or instance would be patched or updated more than the virtual one seems unrelated. A hesitance to patch systems is more about up time vs downtime vs breaking vs risk in my opinion.
Is your organization running critical workloads virtual like anything else, combination physical and virtual, or combination of all previous plus cloud solutions (off prem)?
There is so much old and creaky stuff lying around and people have no idea what it does. Beige boxes in a cabinet that when we had to decommission it the only way to understand what it does was doing the scream test: turn it off and see who screams!
Or even stuff that was deployed as IaC by an engineer but then they left and so was managed “clickOps”, but documentation never updated.
When people talk about the Tier1 systems they often forget the peripheral stuff required to make them work. Sure the super mega shiny ERP system is clustered, with FT and DR, backups off site etc. But it talks to the rest of the world through an internal smtp server running on a Linux box under the stairs connected to a single consumer grade switch (I’ve seen this. Dust bunnies were almost sentient lol).
Everyone wants the new shiny stuff but nobody wants to take care of the old stuff.
Or they say “oh we need a new VM quickly, we’ll install the old way and then migrate to a container in the cloud”. And guess what, it never happens.