From: "Robert Comer" 

> Ok let me explain it this way. With a single booted copy of W2K you can
> assign multiple IP addresses and host multiple websites, you can also
> assign
> one IP address and host multiple websites. Both these examples are of a
> single physical server, single virtual server (in the sense you use
> virtual
> server) because there is one NT user database providing security for all
> the
> sites, ie. there is only 1 administrator user.

No problem with that.  Assume 6000 sites on a rather large PC (same size PC
as my proposal)

> With virtual servers you have multiple copies of W2K booted so you can
> have
> multiple administrator users, each of these virtual servers can run a
> single
> or multiple websites.

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.

>But this method has a price for allowing multiple
> administrator users, it uses up a lot of memory loading the OS multiple
> times in each vm.

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.

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.

> Typically the setup in this second example would be done where each
> administrator wanted to load a different set of web extensions or maybe
> one
> wants to run IIS and another wants to run apache, etc. It's far more
> resource intensive this way.

Not when you count hardware as one of the resources, 30 small servers 1 or
two big ones, it's far less hardware.

> The virtual machines method allows under 50 websites per machine, the
> single
> machine method allows hundreds because it's far less resource intensive
> (even IIS is only loaded once although it's providing hundreds of
> websites).

No it doesn't, you can use your same exact scheme you described for one
server, you're not limited to 50 websites by any means, you only isolate
what you need and want to.

>30
> virtual machines on one physical box could host 30 websites.

Bad assumption.

--
Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:43809b24$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:43804623{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> 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.
>
> Ok let me explain it this way. With a single booted copy of W2K you can
> assign multiple IP addresses and host multiple websites, you can also
> assign
> one IP address and host multiple websites. Both these examples are of a
> single physical server, single virtual server (in the sense you use
> virtual
> server) because there is one NT user database providing security for all
> the
> sites, ie. there is only 1 administrator user.
>
> With virtual servers you have multiple copies of W2K booted so you can
> have
> multiple administrator users, each of these virtual servers can run a
> single
> or multiple websites. But this method has a price for allowing multiple
> administrator users, it uses up a lot of memory loading the OS multiple
> times in each vm.
>
> Typically the setup in this second example would be done where each
> administrator wanted to load a different set of web extensions or maybe
> one
> wants to run IIS and another wants to run apache, etc. It's far more
> resource intensive this way.
>
> In the first example there is one copy of the OS and one copy of IIS
> running, each user is not a machine admin but instead is a website
> publisher, control of the OS remains with the machine administrator and
> each
> user must settle for whatever set of web extensions this administrator has
> decided to provide. This is how most windows based hosting is done.
>
> The virtual machines method allows under 50 websites per machine, the
> single
> machine method allows hundreds because it's far less resource intensive
> (even IIS is only loaded once although it's providing hundreds of
> websites).
>
>> 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)
>
> It's not the same, 30 real physical machines could host 600x30 websites,
> 30
> virtual machines on one physical box could host 30 websites. It's a huge
> difference, I would need 20 physical machines to host 600 websites and
> that's 20x30 more labor for patching. It's a huge difference.
>
> Geo.
>
> Geo.
>
>

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