From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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?

Not the kind of virtualization I'm talking about.

>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..

I don't recall anything like that,  but with something like Virtual Server,
the patching can be scripted, so it could be done at the same time.

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

The AS/400 has separate images and that's how I thought the mainframes worked too...

--
Bob Comer


"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:4381f60d{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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