From: "Robert Comer" 

>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