Gustav Brock
Gustav at cactus.dk
Wed Nov 21 09:21:45 CST 2007
Hi Tina Don't hesitate. We haven't worked that much with Microsoft's implementation or Xen (now bought by Citrix) but has focussed on the free VMware Server: http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ It's a marvellous product and we (me and my colleagues) recommend it highly. All server installations we have carried out for the last six months have been on virtual machines and all future will except for some special situations (like old hardware with limited ram). The negative part is that a virtual server runs about 10-15% slower than a clean physical installation on identical hardware, and that ram in a virtual server is limited to 3.6 GB for the free version. Everything else are pluses: - zero cost - runs on all decent hardware - host OS can be Windows (Server preferred) or Linux - remote control of the virtual servers including rebooting. - backup of a _complete_ virtual server to one single file is a snap. So is restore(!) - configuration of a server can be done on any decent hardware, then moved to the client's brand new hardware. - thus, extremely fast replacement of broken down hardware. Virtual servers are about to revolutionize server installations and in a few years it will be the default method except for some rare cases. If you prefer not to use Linux as the host OS, you can use an AMD 64 bit server which typically supports 8 GB ram or more and install the 64 bit Windows Server from the Action Pack you have wondered what to use for. /gustav >>> tinanfields at torchlake.com 21-11-2007 15:40 >>> One of these days, I really have to investigate this virtual machine concept. It really is cool, and it seems to solve the problem of needing more than one box. Tina jwcolby wrote: > VIRTUAL MACHINE!