On 11/7/07, michael nt milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes I realise about the single point of failure. Ideally of course we'd have
> separate physical servers for this. It's an intranet so security is less of
> an issue. There just seem to be advantages from running virtual machines.
> I'm not
yes I realise about the single point of failure. Ideally of course we'd have
separate physical servers for this. It's an intranet so security is less of
an issue. There just seem to be advantages from running virtual machines.
I'm not an expert but aren't they easier to manage, rollback and back-up
ok, so you could have two virtual machines say development and also staging
which sat alongside a live production 'non virtual' instance of Zope. This
would all sit on the one physical machine. The dev and staging instances
would be switched off and on as required. With enough RAM and CPU would thi
On 11/7/07, michael nt milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok, so you could have two virtual machines say development and also staging
> which sat alongside a live production 'non virtual' instance of Zope. This
> would all sit on the one physical machine. The dev and staging instances
> would be sw
Has anyone tried this or had any experience with this? We're using Enfold
Server and for staging and development purposes instead of using separate
machines we're thinking of setting up a 'virtual machines' on the same
server. There appear to be many
benefits. However knowing that Zope/Plone are RA
On 11/7/07, michael nt milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone tried this or had any experience with this? We're using Enfold
> Server and for staging and development purposes instead of using separate
> machines we're thinking of setting up a 'virtual machines' on the same
> server. There ap
