http://blogs.technet.com/b/msdatacenters/archive/2011/07/20/the-cloud-infrastructure-journey-from-containers-to-modularity-long-live-containment.aspxBy Dileep Bhandarkar, Ph.D. Distinguished Engineer Global Foundation Services, Microsoft In late 2007 we were intrigued by the opportunity of deploying servers in ISO (shipping) containers. Our analysis showed that we could pack as many as 2500en-USTelligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)http://blogs.technet.com/b/msdatacenters/archive/2011/07/20/the-cloud-infrastructure-journey-from-containers-to-modularity-long-live-containment.aspx#3442840Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:19:53 GMTd5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3442840msdcblog<p>As our workload evolved, we increased the memory and storage per server to expand the amount of compute per server. This increased the amount of space needed to house additional disk drives. The new configuration allowed space for only 1800 servers in a container. </p> <p>/db</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3442840" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.technet.com/b/msdatacenters/archive/2011/07/20/the-cloud-infrastructure-journey-from-containers-to-modularity-long-live-containment.aspx#3442718Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:41:51 GMTd5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3442718DR<p>So why did Microsoft divert from containers that supported 2500 servers to containers that only supported 1800 servers?</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3442718" width="1" height="1">