Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Running a Web Hosting Business : dunno if anyone have report this but MS VirtualServer is now free - new business for

[jt2377]

us?

story on slashdot - http://slashdot.org/articles/06/04/03/217244.shtml

download - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/default.mspx

wow! this look like a great new businese for those of us who are into VPS.

i guess i might try this with a big iron server and slice it up for VSP sell.

what do you think?

[HYB-Bryan]

Virtual Server doesn't officially support Linux and I have no idea if it will run on it. If you plan to run Windows then you still have to purchase a license for each VM. Doesn't sound like a really great deal. Also, VMware has a free product now too which works great.

[jt2377]

Originally Posted by HYB-Bryan

Virtual Server doesn't officially support Linux and I have no idea if it will run on it. If you plan to run Windows then you still have to purchase a license for each VM. Doesn't sound like a really great deal. Also, VMware has a free product now too which works great.

why do you want to use MS's proudct for linux vps? by the same token, won't VMware also require you to have a Windows OS for each VM?

this might be a good deal for Windows VPS

[Amish_Geek]

Originally Posted by jt2377

why do you want to use MS's proudct for linux vps? by the same token, won't VMware also require you to have a Windows OS for each VM?

this might be a good deal for Windows VPS

We've tried MS virtual server, and it was laggy as all else. VMWare is MUCH better.

Applications would run choppy in the virtual servers. I don't believe MS Virtual server properly threads cpu processes for the virtual machines.

Our comparison comes from running Asterisk within VMWare, and then running it within MS Virtual Server. Both were done on the same hardware (2.4ghz P4, 1gb ram) running Windows Server 2003 as the base OS.

IMO, use VMWare GSX server, its free and open source now.

[jt2377]

Originally Posted by Utaria-Aaron

We've tried MS virtual server, and it was laggy as all else. VMWare is MUCH better.

Applications would run choppy in the virtual servers. I don't believe MS Virtual server properly threads cpu processes for the virtual machines.

Our comparison comes from running Asterisk within VMWare, and then running it within MS Virtual Server. Both were done on the same hardware (2.4ghz P4, 1gb ram) running Windows Server 2003 as the base OS.

IMO, use VMWare GSX server, its free and open source now.

humm...going have to try out both and see how they stackup.

does anyone have any idea how big is the VPS market?

[sam_cogan]

Virtual server now officially supports linux:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...supports-linux

[remarkabletek]

Originally Posted by HYB-Bryan

Virtual Server doesn't officially support Linux and I have no idea if it will run on it. If you plan to run Windows then you still have to purchase a license for each VM. Doesn't sound like a really great deal. Also, VMware has a free product now too which works great.

Just an FYI, not if you are using Windows 2003 Server R2.. The R2 release/license allows up to 4 installs in a virtual environment (ie: either VMware or Virtual Server)..

[jt2377]

Originally Posted by palmtree

Just an FYI, not if you are using Windows 2003 Server R2.. The R2 release/license allows up to 4 installs in a virtual environment (ie: either VMware or Virtual Server)..

does it mean you can host 4 child Windows20003 without paying for 4 Windows liscense? Thus, you only need one copy of Windows 2003 as host OS?

[remarkabletek]

Well, VMware doesn't use a "Host OS' as Virtual Server does.. however to answer your question, yes.. Only one license is needed for Windows 2003 R2 and then you can run up to 4 VM's "on" it..

Here's Microsoft's post:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...trategyPR.mspx

[Jimerson]

Looks interesting. I might try this out at home later.

-Jim