From: "Robert Comer" 

> Ok we no longer disagree, all I'm saying is in the web host business where
> you have a lot of competition you really have to squeeze every ounce of
> performance out of the machines to turn a profit.

That makes sense to me.

> Most of the cost cutting I've seen is consolidation of functions, like
> moving the web server and email and proxy to the same box type of stuff.

Cost cutting by consolidating hardware is one of the biggest reasons to go
virtual, yet keep things isolated like they were still seperate.

--
Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:43827fc4$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:4381d697{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> I agree you need a bigger faster, better machine to run it, but the
>> advantages are great if it would work for you -- I'm not saying it would
>> work for everyone by any means.
>
> Ok we no longer disagree, all I'm saying is in the web host business where
> you have a lot of competition you really have to squeeze every ounce of
> performance out of the machines to turn a profit.
>
>> You don't get around much.   You wouldn't normally notice
if some corp
>> were running VM stuff unless they told you they were, it'd just be
> machines
>> in a rack from the outside.  You're also forgetting that PC's have come
> late
>> to the game and they are definitely not the only game in town, mainframes
>> have been doing it for 20 or 30 years and even midranges are all virtual
>> now.
>
> I realize the bigger iron does this but what I've seen of businesses we
> deal
> with (as an ISP) I never ever have seen anyone doing vm stuff except at
> the
> desktop as a way to get multiple environments for testing purposes. I
> don't
> think I've ever seen it in a production environment.
>
> Most of the cost cutting I've seen is consolidation of functions, like
> moving the web server and email and proxy to the same box type of stuff.
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5