> For example Local Director has a the ability to "see" > how busy a server is and to check its status. I would > assume other infrastructure gear does the same thing > (up-time monitors and such). If they all work at the > IP level then they should work just fine, if they don't > then I'm not sure.
These things all work over some sort of networking or other (TCP/IP, named pipes over IP, and so forth). > I think it would have to. Machines ARE all different > even if you try to configure them the same. Heck, even > if you buy the same brand model all at once you may end > up with different OEM NICs and video processors. That's another place where virtualization shines - the virtual machines all have the same "hardware", even when deployed on different physical servers. I've done this before, actually - moved a virtual machine from one physical machine to another without any trouble. > I'm also not sure how simple the machines would be > comparatively. Specifically I'm not sure that they're > simpler for the hoster: all of the plans I've seen has > the VPS tied with remote SQL Server and Mail services - > so it seems like the user configuration would be about > the same (setting up a virtual server is not a hard task > in any system really). > > You'd still have to create the same user accounts quota > and such with hosting. The virtual machines would be simpler, in that they would have simpler web server and application server configurations, and simpler security policies - not having to protect one developer from another, as is necessary in a shared hosting environment. User account quotas would easily be handled by the VM size itself, which can be set on creation. > I'm not sure how it works (or how most hosts are using it). > I know, for example, that if you use a virtual disk file > then you can just copy a file. I thought, however that if > you used a physical disk partition for performance (which > I assume a host would do) that the VM's file system was > not maintained as a simple file. > > I just don't know. > > Although it also brings up the question of how to best back > up and restore VMs. Do you copy the whole disk as you would > any other machine or just the VM's virtual disk image (the > latter would make back ups easier, but restores less granular)? I don't know all the details of how VM best practices would play out, either. I imagine those practices might vary depending on the goal of virtualization in a specific situation. > True... although 2003 also needs a little more oomph. I'm > assuming that's why all the hosts I've seen so far are > hosting the VMs on 2003 but running 2000 ON the VMs. It > could also be for other reasons, but for now at least > every host I've seen is running Win2000 on the VM. Having played around quite a bit with Windows Server 2003, I suspect that the reasons are a bit different: licensing and activation. > Lastly I'm also very confused as to what's out there NOW. > I've seen several hosts now offer Windows VPS solutions.... > but I'm not sure how they are. As far as I can tell MS > hasn't released the software beyond a "not for production > pre-beta" release. It's definitely not part of Windows2003. > > Is everybody that's spending the cash for this solution > actually unknowing "pre-beta" testers? Will they get hosed > when the official release comes out? Emulated hardware is > still hardware to the system - every version of VPC so far > has changed it enough that the guest OSes have had to go > through hoops installing new device drivers - with all of > the downtime and rebooting that implies. It's like taking > a hard disk out of one machine and putting it in another > - not pretty and it sometimes leaves the machine unstable. I have very little experience with the Connectix VPC product on which MSVS is based, beyond helping to support some of our Mac users, but my experience with VMware has been that there's little difference between VM emulated hardware between versions. The MS product is still in "pre-beta", whatever that means, and I don't know what'll happen when it's finally released. VMware has a couple of server virtualization products available now, but I don't know if they're being used by hosting providers - my guess is that they're not, due to their cost. > I'm just not sure how all of this will play out. Of course not! It's The Mysterious Future �! Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
