From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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??

Not very specifically, but there are some broad controls.  Virtual Server
(and ESX for VMWare) have much finer control.  (but not really to the
time-slice, more to the CPU% and processor affinity...)

You really can't give all the priority to the guest, the host needs to have
pretty high level control just to keep things running.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43822cd2{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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/Oct05/10-10VirtualizationStrate
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