From: "Gary Britt" 

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