Running a physical server has advantages in all areas. Randall didn't actually mention his use case. Does anyone know of any such services in the area?
It could be anything from security, government regulations, performance, and even education. Don't assume you know what he is looking for without even asking. I would also like to know if there are any local COLO options. Mostly because of my interest in OS configurations. For me personally, I'd rather have control of my server OS from an education and hobby perspective. How much I spend on my hobby or business is my responsibility. Those virtual servers you are so excited about run on physical hardware. At the end of the day SOMEONE has to run bare metal. Or we can have a moment of silence for all the docker containers that will vanish when the world's last server fails to POST. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Daniel Johnson <tekno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:50 PM Tomas Kuchta <tomas.kuchta.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I have heard that security versus physical HW in colo argument so many > > times. > > > > In my opinion, a padlock is way less secure than well implemented crypto. > > > > The only security benefit I see from physical HW would be hosting it on > > premises - if your threat vector is suponea. Both VM or HW in colo can be > > legally accessed without your knowledge, which shouldn't be possible when > > hosting on premises. > > > > Cost or special snowflake HW would be another consideration. If one gets > to > > rent 15U for $300 a month and if you can fully utilize that volume - you > > could save considerable $$ in certain load scenarios. > > > > Just my thoughts on possible value of real HW outside mainstream and > > home/office. > > > > Tomas > > > > > > If you want a cheap > > subpoena resistant setup. > > > > https://github.com/privacylabs/oasis > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 12:41 PM Louis Kowolowski <lou...@cryptomonkeys.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Michael Rasmussen < > mich...@michaelsnet.us > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > To stress "As others have suggested, you may be able to use a VM" - > at > > > my final job before retirement (Large bank, Fortune 500, etc) > everything > > > possible was migrated to in-house VMs. > > > > I want to say mail services were an early migration. In any case, the > > > entire mail infrastructure was run on virtual servers. > > > > > > > > There's no need for a physical server. > > > > > > > This is your opinion. We're not trying to determine if a VM is capable > of > > > running *a* mail server. We're trying to determine what the > requirements > > of > > > *his* mail server are, because that drives whether a physical server is > > > required. > > > > > > There may be a security requirement such as "no AES key leakage to > other > > > tenants". In this case, he may not be able to use a VM. There are > people > > in > > > the crypto community who believe that any system that needs secure > crypto > > > should not be virtualized. > > > > > > Again, I'm trying to gather what the requirements are before stating > what > > > the solution is. > > > > > > -- > > > Louis Kowolowski > lou...@cryptomonkeys.org > > > Cryptomonkeys: > > > http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/ > > > > > > Making life more interesting for people since 1977 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > PLUG mailing list > > > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PLUG mailing list > > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
