From: "Robert Comer" 

> What do you think of the practicality of the above?

Unless you play some serious games or heavy multimedia stuff, it's a very
practical thing to do.  It is a bit slower as Geo implies, but it sure is a
good way to have a consistent OS with different hardware.

Just remember that a virtual machine has access to only devices that are
emulated, so any special stuff on the host isn't going to pass through. (no
TV tuners, no 3D video cards, no PCMCIA, no USB.)

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:4382153a{at}w3.nls.net...
>I was thinking about using one of these products so I could continue to
>work
> in Win2K without having to worry about tracking down drivers and
> installing,
> etc. on new hardware.  If I had the setup I wanted created as a virtual
> machine, then it would be a piece of cake to move that setup and all its
> programs to any new hardware.  Just let the new hardware host a virtual
> machine for win2k, all the drivers, etc stay the same inside the virtual
> machine so transferring to new hardware should be as simple as just
> copying
> the virtual machine (file/partition) to the new hardware.  No need to
> hassle
> with the problems of moving the operating system to new hardware for real
> and all the related driver issues and inaccessible boot drive stuff.
>
> What do you think of the practicality of the above?
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:4381f734{at}w3.nls.net...
>> VMWare is still a bit faster at changes right now, but Microsoft is
>> definitely not standing still with their technology.
>>
>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/Oct05/10-10VirtualizationStrate
gyPR.mspx
>>
>> Is pretty interesting...
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:4381f0d0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > Does MS continue to make regular improvements to Virtual PC?  How about
>> > VMWare?
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>> > news:4381d863$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> > Robert which do you like better, Virtual PC or
VMWare workstation?
>> >>
>> >> It depends on the task at hand, I have and use both, as well as
>> >> Virtual
>> >> Server from Microsoft, but for most of my VM work which
is programming
>> >> and
>> >> testing in a Windows environment, I like Virtual PC the most.
>> >>
>> >> I tend to use VMware if I want to use Linux any, and I use Virtual
> Server
>> > if
>> >> I want to do any long term testing in Windows.  I
probably will move
> some
>> >> production tasks to VM's running on Virtual Server R2 in
not too long
>> >> a
>> >> time...
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bob Comer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>> >> news:4381b6da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> > Robert which do you like better, Virtual PC or
VMWare workstation?
>> >> >
>> >> > Gary
>> >> >
>> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>> >> > news:43814cb7{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >no way could you do 30 each of those doing
20 sites, not
>> >> >> > going to happen.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think you're selling it short.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The hosting business is very competitive,
you can't afford lots
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > anything
>> >> >> > unless people are willing to pay for it.
Nobody running windows
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > doing
>> >> >> > virtual servers this way. Mostly when you
rent a full server it's
> a
>> >> >> > physical
>> >> >> > machine, you even get access to a remote
power switch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think you'll see some changes soon enough that
way, even in that
>> >> >> type
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> business, there's no physical reason a coloc
machine has to be a
> real
>> >> >> one,
>> >> >> even down to the remote power switch. (in fact,
you'd never know it
>> >> >> was
>> > a
>> >> >> virtual machine without some registry browsing.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > show me someone doing windows virtual
servers. All the one's I've
>> > seen
>> >> >> > where
>> >> >> > you get admin access to the machine are
really physical machines.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You talk to that world more than I, but I talk
to the corp world
>> >> >> and
>> >> > they're
>> >> >> doing it virtual more and more -- some have been
doing it for a lot
> of
>> >> > years
>> >> >> already...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Bob Comer
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Geo"  wrote in message
> news:4381448e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:4380a981{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Yeah, so in your scenario about you get
rooted, it's all lost,
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> mine,
>> >> >> > say
>> >> >> >> I have 15 virtual servers, each serving
400 sites, one gets
> rooted,
>> > I
>> >> >> >> only
>> >> >> >> lose 1/15'th of my sites.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It doesn't work that way, first you won't
be hosting 100's of
> sites
>> > per
>> >> >> > virtual server because of the load, 600
sites on a fast dual cpu
>> >> >> > machine
>> >> >> > with no virtual copies of the OS running is
pushing it, with
> virtual
>> >> >> > servers
>> >> >> > you would be isolating each customer to
their own virtual machine
> so
>> >> > maybe
>> >> >> > you could do 30, no way could you do 30
each of those doing 20
>> >> >> > sites,
>> >> > not
>> >> >> > going to happen.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now to the rooted issue. I guess if one
virtual server is running
>> >> >> > PHP
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > gets rooted then it might just affect that
one site, otoh if it's
> a
>> >> > patch
>> >> >> > issue and it got rooted because of the OS
or something all the
>> > virtual
>> >> >> > servers have in common then they probably
all get rooted. It is
>> >> >> > safer
>> >> > but
>> >> >> > only partially safer in that you could
allow folks to run
> executable
>> >> >> > extensions of their choice without really
increasing the risk to
> the
>> >> > other
>> >> >> > hosted sites.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Yep, and that's actually a benefit, no
servers administrator has
>> >> >> >> access
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> any of the other servers, total
isolation, in your scheme, and
>> >> >> >> admin
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> an
>> >> >> >> admin, he has it all, and it's true,
you need a lot of RAM and
> disk
>> >> > too,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> >> the advantages outweigh they
disadvantages for a LOT of
>> >> >> >> companies
>> > out
>> >> >> > here.
>> >> >> >> I could even have the DB and mail
servers as a 16th and 17th VM,
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> > keep
>> >> >> >> them just as secure as if they were on
separate hardware.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The hosting business is very competitive,
you can't afford lots
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > anything
>> >> >> > unless people are willing to pay for it.
Nobody running windows
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > doing
>> >> >> > virtual servers this way. Mostly when you
rent a full server it's
> a
>> >> >> > physical
>> >> >> > machine, you even get access to a remote
power switch.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You'd really be shocked at how many,
the big guys have been
>> >> >> >> using
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> > for
>> >> >> >> years, and now its filtering down into
the middle and smaller
>> >> >> >> tiers.
>> >> >> > (think
>> >> >> >> more than just websites, but db, app
servers, printer/fileshare
>> >> >> >> servers
>> >> >> > too)
>> >> >> >> Even the hardware companies are making
it easier with VT and
>> > Pacifica.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > show me someone doing windows virtual
servers. All the one's I've
>> > seen
>> >> >> > where
>> >> >> > you get admin access to the machine are
really physical machines.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Geo.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

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