> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've looked at using Virtual Server for small sites and it > makes sense to me. The only drawback is that all your eggs > are in one basket - lose the host and you lose everything. > The same's true for patching as you'll need downtime on all > of the guest machines when the host is updated.
Quite right, however, if you have a host that is dedicated to hosting Virtual Server, e.g. everything except the host's core OS and Virtual Server is hosted in a guest, then you've greatly reduced the "surface" that needs patching. SQL has a problem that needs patching? So does AD? DNS vulnerability? ...watch my Virtual Server host not care! Also, while nothing is foolproof, good server hardware is much more reliable now than it ever was, in my experience. I've seen servers fail during "burn in" of course due to a fault that they came out of the factory with, and of course drives are mechanical and fail sometimes which is why we all use RAID, but other than that I see very very few hardware faults at all. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP for Windows Servers & Security Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College "He's back, and this time he's got a portable bulk-eraser!!!" List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
