From: "Gary Britt" 

Can you specify the time slicing between host and VM's or basically give
all CPU usage to the foreground OS, whether host or VM??

Gary

"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:43821bcd{at}w3.nls.net...
> > 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/Oct05/10-10VirtualizationStrategy
PR.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