> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:19 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CrystalTech says ALL variables must be locked > > > 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.
So have I - at least when using the same version of the VM software. But moving versions is a totally different story (at least for VPC). The REALY cool thing about this is that I can create a virtual server (Windows 2000 on VPC 5 for example) on my home PC on a portable harddrive. I can work on it for a while, then take the drive to work and continue there with no changes whatsoever. Very slick. I've also taken to doing all my testing and QA on VPCs - when the QA team needs to recreate the problem I can copy the VPC image to a shared server and they can see it exactly as I did. The latter situation pushes the legality of the licensing however... but it's damn useful. ;^) > > 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. But only for the web - not for the other services expected (and currently being offered). Email and SQL server quotas are still set outside for example. > > 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. Just curious: how are they that different? If you're legal on Win2000 then licensing doesn't seem to differ (byond that fact that 2003 Web Edition is far cheaper). If you're cheating on licensing then it's really just as easy to do with 2003 as it is with 2000. > > 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. The hosts I've seen with Windows VPS all tout "MS Virtual Machine Software" or somesuch. I think that they've either got a later release from MS or are pushing things along a little faster than MS wants. The Connectix software tends to change pretty drastically between versions. So much so that it's almost easier to reinstall the OS than try to move it to a new version. This can be seen as a good thing (if you stretch things) since the new versions introduce "better hardware" but does make upgrading interesting to say the least. Since the virtual hardware improved so much between versions it did make since that you'd want to force the guest OS to upgrade its drivers I suppose. My guess is, from my experience with the Connectix products, than VM images from one version of Virtual Server won't be compatible with others (and that my current VPC 5.0 images won't be compatible with Virtual Server). That's one thing that (Connectix at least) never tried: componentization of the virtual hardware. You had one "machine" with a specific NIC, video card, sound card, IDE controller and so forth. That hardware profile was set - you couldn't upgrade just one piece of virtual hardware (or replace it with one from a previous version) - it was all of a piece or nothing. My understanding of VMWare is that it's really about the same in that respect (actually my understanding is that in practice both the Connectix and the VMWare options are almost feature identical). Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
