Re: VM's in AD

0-523-7282 x 1673 > > Fax: 610-233-0404 > > www.fiserv.com > > > > *From:* Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2011 4:31 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: VM's in AD > > > > We’re

RE: VM's in AD

Subject: RE: VM's in AD We're virtually all virtual, and our VMs are managed the same as the few physical Windows server we have. From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: VM's in AD We are

RE: VM's in AD

essage- From: Mike Leone [mailto:oozerd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:43 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: VM's in AD On 6/1/2011 3:35 PM, Joseph Heaton wrote: > We're about 95% virtualized here. The only things that aren't > virtual, really, are our

RE: VM's in AD

Depends – do you owe me money, or do I owe you money? Yes. Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. From: Daniel Rodriguez [mailto:drod...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: VM's in AD Are you in southern Indiana? O

RE: VM's in AD

+1. We are about 80-90% VM'd for our environment, and they are configured practically identically to our physical boxen. -sc . On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Andrew S. Baker wrote: No, we treat VMs very similarly to physical systems for the most part... About 20% of our production

RE: VM's in AD

phere! > > > Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 > To err is human - to moo, bovine. > > From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:06 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: VM's in AD > > Do you guys treat VM's any differentl

RE: VM's in AD

wea.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:06 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: VM's in AD Do you guys treat VM's any differently than a physical machine? In my environment we are starting to get several of our Mac developers having WinOS VM's running on them. David Lum S

RE: VM's in AD

We're virtually all virtual, and our VMs are managed the same as the few physical Windows server we have. From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: VM's in AD We are about 60-70% Virtual, and heading

RE: VM's in AD

: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:12 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: VM's in AD No, we treat VMs very similarly to physical systems for the most part... About 20% of our production environment and 50% of our development environment is virtual. ASB (Professional Bio <http://

RE: VM's in AD

ystem Admin Issues Subject: Re: VM's in AD On 6/1/2011 3:35 PM, Joseph Heaton wrote: > We're about 95% virtualized here. The only things that aren't > virtual, really, are our SQL boxes. Yeah, we rarely, if ever, run SQL on virtual boxes. Except for really small DBs, ma

Re: VM's in AD

On 6/1/2011 3:35 PM, Joseph Heaton wrote: > We're about 95% virtualized here. The only things that aren't virtual, > really, are our SQL boxes. Yeah, we rarely, if ever, run SQL on virtual boxes. Except for really small DBs, maybe. And certainly not the larger production DBs, which are up around

Re: VM's in AD

We're about 95% virtualized here. The only things that aren't virtual, really, are our SQL boxes. >>> "Andrew S. Baker" 6/1/2011 11:12 AM >>> No, we treat VMs very similarly to physical systems for the most part... About 20% of our production environment and 50% of our development environment i

Re: VM's in AD

We're about 80% virtual. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Andrew S. Baker wrote: > No, we treat VMs very similarly to physical systems for the most part... > > About 20% of our production environment and 50% of our development > environment is virtual. > > > > *ASB *(Professional Bio

Re: VM's in AD

No, we treat VMs very similarly to physical systems for the most part... About 20% of our production environment and 50% of our development environment is virtual. *ASB *(Professional Bio ) *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market... *

Re: VM's in AD

We have a few hundred in virtual environments. We do not name them differently and treat them the same pretty muh. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Mike Leone wrote: > On 6/1/2011 12:05 PM, David Lum wrote: > > Do you guys treat VM’s any differently than a physical machine? In my > > environmen

Re: VM's in AD

On 6/1/2011 12:05 PM, David Lum wrote: > Do you guys treat VM’s any differently than a physical machine? In my > environment we are starting to get several of our Mac developers having > WinOS VM’s running on them. No. In fact, I have 2 DCs that are VMs in VMware ESX 4.1. ~ Finally, powerful end

Re: VM's in AD

physical > machines. > > > > Sam > > > > *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:06 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* VM's in AD > > > > Do you guys treat VM’s any differently than a physical mac

RE: VM's in AD

SUS settings as physical machines. Sam From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: VM's in AD Do you guys treat VM's any differently than a physical machine? In my environment we are starting to get seve

Re: VM's in AD

Other than not requiring a hardware contract, they pretty much behave the same, with the same management needs. In order to keep VM sprawl down, it's sometimes necessary to implement stricter commissioning procedures for new servers and workstations, and/or restrict admin rights. I'm assuming your