From: "Glenn Meadows" 

Don't the virtual servers load from a single image (addressing Georges
question on patching), and if you patch the one image, all the virtual
servers are now patched?  I recall some discussion about this with Linux
and IBM, where they were talking about that in some advertising, where they
were loading tons of virtual servers on a mainframe, that security was just
patch the load image, and then just restart the virtual servers, and they
are then all patched..

Would it not be the same for a Windows based virtual server?

--

Glenn M.
"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:43804623{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It would be one site (or more specifically one customer) per virtual
>> server
>> where as with individual websites it's 600 customers per physical server.
>
> I don't understand you on this, but there's isn't any difference between a
> virtual server and a physical server for the way I'm talking virtual,
> other than the fact that you can run more than one of them on the same
> physical hardware -- a virtual server is just another PC server to the
> outside world.
>
>> How is there a savings in either?
>
> As I said, way less hardware costs because you need far less hardware. 30
> $1,500 servers vs maybe a $10,000 one...
>
> For support, you have one "physical" hardware platform for
your servers,
> one set of very debugged drivers, always the same set, and you can move
> them to new hardware without changing drivers.
>
>>however patch wise a virtual
>> server would likely take more time to patch than just a regular server
>> where
>> there is only one copy of the OS..
>
> Think of what I'm saying as just server consolidation, from 30 physical
> servers to 1 or 2 -- it would take the same time to patch the 30 as it
> would the 1 or 2 (with 30 virtual servers on them)
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43801232{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>> news:437f1807$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>> No, at 30 virtual servers with 600 sites on each server -- and you'd
>>> only
>>> need 2 physical machine,
>>
>> It would be one site (or more specifically one customer) per virtual
>> server
>> where as with individual websites it's 600 customers per physical server.
>>
>>> Anyway, it's really not a saving in software costs that makes Virtual
>>> machine type stuff attractive, it's on the saving on hardware and the
>> saving
>>> in support costs.
>>
>> How is there a savings in either? Hardware wise a virtual server is more
>> resource intensive than just a website and support wise one customer
>> requires as much support as one customer, however patch wise a virtual
>> server would likely take more time to patch than just a regular server
>> where
>> there is only one copy of the OS..
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>>
>
>

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