From: "Robert Comer" 

> At 30 virtual servers per server they would have to rent for $200/month to
> bring in the same income.

No, at 30 virtual servers with 600 sites on each server -- and you'd only
need 2 physical machine, one for hardware failover, and one main, instead
of the 30 physical servers you would propose. (cheaper hardware costs is
one of the big benefits...)

>That doesn't take into account the added licensing
> costs for the virtual server software over and above the regular software
> (I
> wonder how you would license W2K server to run 30 virtual servers on one
> box?)

Other than what I said above, licensing is expensive, but you could get by
for nothing pretty much if you used Linux, or if you want to go windows,
Win2003 R2 EE you can run 4 instances under Virtual Server R2 without
paying anything extra. (that seems to be the way MS is going with
licensing)

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.

--
Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:437e9c17$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:437e9a0e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> You couldn't run 100 virtual servers on any PC's that I know about, 25 or
> 30
>> is pretty much the max -- think of how much RAM each and every server you
>> have has...
>
> Ok lets see, most of the big hosting services put 600 websites on a dual
> P4/3ghz machine, each of these rents for about $10/month so that's $6000
> per
> month income per physical server
>
> At 30 virtual servers per server they would have to rent for $200/month to
> bring in the same income. That doesn't take into account the added
> licensing
> costs for the virtual server software over and above the regular software
> (I
> wonder how you would license W2K server to run 30 virtual servers on one
> box?)
>
> Seems expensive.
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5