<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Introduction to server virtualization ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T17:26:05-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Great article!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3740986]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Server virtualization has become a hot topic within many companies. Do you have a server virtualization strategy yet?If not, don't worry.. Here's an upcoming webinar, which will be a very informative session on server virtualization, Q&amp;A on how to get started. Get yourself register today -- (Yes, its free)Webinar: Getting started with server virtualizationWed, Jan 23, 2013 10:30 AM - 11:15 AM PSThttps://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6942674106758242048]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3740986]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Market]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:30:20 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't think it's right]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3497560]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Why would you want to have independent virtual servers for HTTP, DNS, LDAP, DHCP, FTP, etc etc, unless they are operated by different companies?  If they are within the same legal or administration entity, it is downright silly, expensive and inefficient.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3497560]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[kingkong88@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 02:05:16 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Introduction to server virtualization]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3372160]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We've got a great blog an video on server virtualization here if anyone needs further information http://www.ers.ie/Blog/post/What-is-Virtualization-An-Introduction-to-Server-Virtualization.aspx]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3372160]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Conskinn]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:43:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Risks to consider when undertaking Virtualization?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3276529]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My IS team are about to virtualize a number of servers, bang in the middle of my project - they tell me it's a simple case of switch off and on again, and nobody will notice a difference - as the Project Manager, I know this is never the case, and want to raise external dependency risks - what are they, and how are they countered?ThanksChris]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3276529]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CMBaylis]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:41:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Introduction to server virtualization]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3075647]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[One stop shops for server virtualization (http://www.gsihosting.com/virtualization/virtualization-advantages.aspx) are becoming more and more popular, and help to get around a lot of the headaches of DIY'ing it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-3075647]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Virtual Guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 16:43:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Introduction to server virtualization]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2577883]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I would advice starting with server consolidation, while making your plans for virtualization. While virtualization remains the long term goal for your organization, it does involve some technical expertise, and implementing server consolidation does give you some quick gains. The number of redundant servers in organizations  is usually quite amazingGaryhttp://www.data-recovery-reviews.com]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2577883]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[http://www.data-recovery-reviews.com]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:51:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OS is usually local]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2048755]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[OS can reside on a Fiber Channel SAN or iSCSI SAN, but it is usually locally stored.  The data if there is anything significant is stored on the SAN so that if/when a server needs to be moved, it simply mounts to the SAN.In order to hot-migrate a server, there are advanced management tools from VMware that do this now.  Microsoft, Virtual Iron, Xen are all working on their own tools.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2048755]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:24:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Virtual Server]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2048285]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What I don't understand is how and where the OS is stored. Is it on the server hardware disk array, on a SAN / NAS array? If a virtual server session bites the dust how can you move it to another server? Then how would it know where databases such as SQL or Exchange IS are stored?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2048285]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Joanne Lowery]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:30:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Clarification]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2029653]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This URL states the benefits more clearly:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensingr2/overview.mspxSee the Expanded Use Rights section...-B]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2029653]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shdowflare]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:02:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not quite...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2029642]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[snipped text from that URLInstead of licensing every inactive or stored virtual instance of a Windows Server System product, customers can now create and store an unlimited number of instances, including those for back-up and recovery, and only pay for the maximum number of running instances at any given time.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2029642]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[steve@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:16:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Another Option]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2024220]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Virtuozzo is another company playing in the virtual arena but they are a little different.  They virtualize the OS kernel rather than the hardware.  This means that all the VM's run off of one shared OS so you only need the one license.  Of course, this leads to other problems, ie any changes to the OS effect all VM's, but it does solve the license problems.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2024220]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[kenw@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 08:19:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Virtual licensing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2020792]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I see that if you buy 1 copy of Enterprise, you get to run 4 instances on a single box.Still kind of expensive, but since I work for a non-profit, I can buy 1 copy of Enterprise with 2 years of SA for $750.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2020792]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[stuarth@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 14:51:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[True]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2020148]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[point taken on those Rates, (80% goes back to my power production days)(edited to add:)I think that most centers would like a 40% rate accross the infastructure.  But I'm sure there are other opinions out there. (probably more valid than mine)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2020148]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dawgit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2006 02:47:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[M$ Licensing not as bad as you think...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019777]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you have 4 Windows 2003 Servers running as VM's on one physical machine, you'd only need to buy one Windows 2003 license.  This is only one of the many virtualization-based licensing benefits Microsoft has employed within the last year.  See this article for more info:http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/oct05/10-10virtualizationlicensing.mspx]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019777]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shdowflare]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 17:18:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You have the right idea]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019748]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Just the numbers were off a little.  I don't recommend more than 50% CPU utilization ever even for peak work loads.  It's not that you can't do it; just that it becomes too slow.  What I mean is that you can take 16 500 MHz servers and put it on to a dual-socket quad-core 3+ GHz server.  Your over all CPU utilization should still remain low.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019748]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 14:56:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not Quite]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019700]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That's not Quite what George Ou is talking about here.  Hosted Servers, or hosted Shells are different in that; 1) off site; 2) non ownership; 3) not directly under Your control. What George means is that when you already have 2,3,4... Servers On-Site, and are useing up a physical box for each one, (at 20% untilization) you can save Money. (1box=3servers=80%)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2019700]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dawgit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 13:52:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[virtual servers era]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2017309]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think the CPU cluster must be &quot;punished&quot;. I mean put on hard work, because the hardware cluster is not used efficiently.The solution of virtual server on a physical hardware cluster is a rationale mode of ROI!Please look at this hyperlinkhttp://www.eapps.com/ManagedHosting/VirtualPrivateServer.jspThis Java platform is a very serious solution!Do not try to change the class of a cluster server introducing later another inadequate operating system!Its like an elephant could eat a tyrannosaur!wow!Each hardware has its corresponding software, as a woman with a specific body uses a specific trouser or mini!Dan Gheorghe]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2017309]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dgs010243]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2006 00:56:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Licensing still a killer.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2016290]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Though VMWare and Microsoft now offer free virtualization software, Enterprise Edition of Microsoft Windows Server 2003 runs $3,700.00.  The standard Edition runs about 1/4 of that, ofcourse you need to spend a few extra dollars on Client Access Licenses.  However, if you should happen to decide you have the need for 4 Windows 2003 Servers, each for light applications, your interest would be better to go for the Enterprise Edition on a single box and cluster the services accross to a fail over box.  I can't remember how Microsoft ruled on that particular item.If the fact that 4 of my servers listed in ZDnet forums were each independantly licensed, I would consider Virtualization an option, but since this is not the case, I am better to stick with my current situation.  Saddening too, I could easily pull a 3 GHz Processor and put in a couple of Dual Cores and push the processing power of that system by about 3 fold or more.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/85-195087-2016290]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mbaumli]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 05:52:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

