From: "Robert Comer" 

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