One more update on Windows to Linux migration - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on One more update on Windows to Linux migration - Ubuntu ; On 2008-09-13, Ignoramus22875 wrote: > On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote: >> >>>1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately >>>15 Linux servers. We will probably use a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

  1. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, Ignoramus22875 wrote:
    > On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
    >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>
    >>>1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>actual work unless something breaks.

    >>
    >> Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    >> those 15 just single, real servers?

    >
    > No, we do not use virtualization at all. The servers are simply able
    > to run more apps per server.
    >
    >> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >> genuinely useful.

    >
    > I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    > than one computer and want to run two OSes, or for ISPs. In my
    > opinion, which is worthj what you paid for it, virtualization in
    > corporate environment means poorly designed aplications that cannot
    > cooperate with opne another properly.


    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    Virtualization is at it's most useful in a large corporate
    environment. Servers in a corporate environment are always
    departmentalized. Each server (or group of them) has a different
    owner, a different Admin, and different users. You use Virtualization
    to put servers together that do not have high needs for the hardware.
    It is also a god-send for availability. In the VMWare environment, I
    have up to 30 servers running per bare-metal box. They are all
    running through a SAN. If one of the boxes dies, the VMWare servers
    are all moved, automagically, to other servers. If CPU requirements
    get too high on one box, some servers move elsewhere, automagically.

    To the end-user, and the departmental admin, there is no impact. They
    see little to no downtime, ever. We even have our environment
    duplicated in a DR scenario. One in our area, the other 1500 Miles
    away. If we have a major outage here, our customers do not notice.

    Doing all this on bare metal would cost us 20x as much, and have no
    noticeable improvement in speed, but would use a ton more power and
    generate a lot more heat. The shareholders like this. The
    customers like this. The departments do not notice it.

    Of course, there are things that require their own servers. Database
    servers are the biggie, so all production SQL servers have their own
    hardware. Devel still goes on VM.

    We don't even allow the departments to buy their own hardware anymore.
    If they need a server, it is VM, unless they can justify the
    additional costs to IT.

    Our local datacenter is now down to about 800 servers. At one time we
    were near 1200, and close to needing major improvements in power
    supply and heat removal.

    In the future, Virtualization may even end up on every single desktop
    as a way to homogenize the desktop environment. You tell hardware
    manufacturers that all they need to do is create drivers for VMWare,
    and then every OS will run with their equipment, no problem. You
    won't need Linux video drivers, sound drivers, or whatever. VMWare
    makes one set of these drivers, and interfaces them to the hardware
    through the VM OS. Everything runs nice. It's not here yet, but
    coming soon to a desktop near you...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  2. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-13, Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-09-13, Ignoramus22875 wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:21:54 -0500, Ignoramus24794 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>1) We will be replacing roughly 80 Windows servers with approximately
    >>>>15 Linux servers. We will probably use a few more Linux servers that
    >>>>would be for redundancy purposes only, and that will not be doing any
    >>>>actual work unless something breaks.
    >>>
    >>> Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    >>> those 15 just single, real servers?

    >>
    >> No, we do not use virtualization at all. The servers are simply able
    >> to run more apps per server.
    >>
    >>> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >>> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >>> genuinely useful.

    >>
    >> I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    >> than one computer and want to run two OSes, or for ISPs. In my
    >> opinion, which is worthj what you paid for it, virtualization in
    >> corporate environment means poorly designed aplications that cannot
    >> cooperate with opne another properly.

    >
    > You have no clue what you are talking about.
    >
    > Virtualization is at it's most useful in a large corporate
    > environment. Servers in a corporate environment are always
    > departmentalized. Each server (or group of them) has a different
    > owner, a different Admin, and different users. You use Virtualization
    > to put servers together that do not have high needs for the hardware.
    > It is also a god-send for availability. In the VMWare environment, I
    > have up to 30 servers running per bare-metal box. They are all
    > running through a SAN. If one of the boxes dies, the VMWare servers
    > are all moved, automagically, to other servers. If CPU requirements
    > get too high on one box, some servers move elsewhere, automagically.


    There are other, and, in my opinion, better ways of doing this. For
    example, a webserver can host many sites, managed by different users,
    there could be many databases per server, etc.

    > To the end-user, and the departmental admin, there is no impact. They
    > see little to no downtime, ever. We even have our environment
    > duplicated in a DR scenario. One in our area, the other 1500 Miles
    > away. If we have a major outage here, our customers do not notice.


    cool.

    > Doing all this on bare metal would cost us 20x as much, and have no
    > noticeable improvement in speed, but would use a ton more power and
    > generate a lot more heat. The shareholders like this. The
    > customers like this. The departments do not notice it.
    >
    > Of course, there are things that require their own servers. Database
    > servers are the biggie, so all production SQL servers have their own
    > hardware. Devel still goes on VM.


    Not necessarily. This depends on how heavily the database servers are
    used. We have 10 per server and it is not a big deal.

    > We don't even allow the departments to buy their own hardware anymore.
    > If they need a server, it is VM, unless they can justify the
    > additional costs to IT.
    >
    > Our local datacenter is now down to about 800 servers. At one time we
    > were near 1200, and close to needing major improvements in power
    > supply and heat removal.


    Most likely you could go to way fewer servers without virtualization,
    if you could make your apps coexist within one OS.

    > In the future, Virtualization may even end up on every single desktop
    > as a way to homogenize the desktop environment. You tell hardware
    > manufacturers that all they need to do is create drivers for VMWare,
    > and then every OS will run with their equipment, no problem. You
    > won't need Linux video drivers, sound drivers, or whatever. VMWare
    > makes one set of these drivers, and interfaces them to the hardware
    > through the VM OS. Everything runs nice. It's not here yet, but
    > coming soon to a desktop near you...


    An interesting idea.
    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  3. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Ignoramus22875 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    > Most likely you could go to way fewer servers without virtualization,
    > if you could make your apps coexist within one OS.


    Hmmm. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    You wouldn't want you mail server, web server, file server, databse
    server all being run on the same OS IMHO.

    I'd certainly VM all those tasks. It makes for far easier management,
    keeps the date seperate, makes it far easier to back up, restore,
    move and means upgrading is a doddle (working with a copy of a VM)

    As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    to that at all.

    --
    "Chopsticks are one of the reasons the Chinese never invented custard."
    Spike Milligan

  4. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:45:45 -0500, Ignoramus22875 wrote:

    >On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


    >> Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    >> those 15 just single, real servers?


    >No, we do not use virtualization at all. The servers are simply able
    >to run more apps per server.


    >> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >> genuinely useful.


    >I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    >than one computer and want to run two OSes, or for ISPs. In my
    >opinion, which is worthj what you paid for it, virtualization in
    >corporate environment means poorly designed aplications that cannot
    >cooperate with opne another properly.


    Yes, that's what I thought too.

    Sometimes it may make sense, for example, if you have to use
    poorly designed applications and want to isolate the rest of
    your systems from them without having to buy extra server
    hardware.

    I've just had one case of a misbehaving Java program that runs
    out of memory. Splitting it into two and letting the two parts
    run on separate servers solves the problem. But, of course, the
    proper solution would have been to put them on a 64 bit server
    that has lots of (cheap) RAM to begin with. In this case the
    company wasn't ready to upgrade their applications to the newer
    Java version required for 64 bit operation.

    So let's conclude that virtual servers are often only a
    workaround, an emergency pseudo-solution, for other problems
    that haven't been solved directly. But there may be other cases
    in which virtualization is a truly sensible solution.

    Hans-Georg
    --
    No mail, please.

  5. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:27:35 -0500, Joe wrote:

    >It is also a god-send for availability. In the VMWare environment, I
    >have up to 30 servers running per bare-metal box. They are all
    >running through a SAN. If one of the boxes dies, the VMWare servers
    >are all moved, automagically, to other servers. If CPU requirements
    >get too high on one box, some servers move elsewhere, automagically.


    Very interesting aspect. Thanks for your good description of the
    virtualized environment.

    Hans-Georg
    --
    No mail, please.

  6. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Hans-Georg Michna illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    > So let's conclude that virtual servers are often only a
    > workaround, an emergency pseudo-solution, for other problems
    > that haven't been solved directly. But there may be other cases
    > in which virtualization is a truly sensible solution.


    I think your conclusion is incorrect.

    Virtualisation of servers makes good sense both in business and
    computing terms on *so* many levels.

    1) Each virtualisation runs a specific server function
    2) Each virtualisation is completely independent
    3) Virtual hard drives are very easy to copy, back up, restore. Far
    easier than to have to do it with multiple servers or one server
    running multiple server tasks.
    4) Upgrade paths are extremely easy. You simply clone the disk, apply
    the upgrade. Test. If all is well, apply the upgraded VM as the
    actual server. No downtime. No risk. Easier than updating a
    traditional server.
    5) You can run a huge amount of VM's (therefore independent servers) on
    one piece of hardware.

    So. In conclusion. It's easier to set up, manage, upgrade and it's far
    more economic.

    This is why many of the large IT companies are already heavily using
    them.

    --
    "You know, somebody actually complimented me on my driving today. They
    left a little note on the windscreen, it said 'Parking Fine.' So that
    was nice." ~ Tim Vine

  7. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-14, Moog wrote:
    > Ignoramus22875 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >>
    >> Most likely you could go to way fewer servers without virtualization,
    >> if you could make your apps coexist within one OS.

    >
    > Hmmm. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    >
    > You wouldn't want you mail server, web server, file server, databse
    > server all being run on the same OS IMHO.


    The real answer is that "it depends". How heavily are the components
    used? Is there enough room?

    What woud be more reliable, assuming they can all fit on one server?
    Having all of these on one server, with another as backup? That would
    be my answer.

    > I'd certainly VM all those tasks. It makes for far easier management,
    > keeps the date seperate, makes it far easier to back up, restore,
    > move and means upgrading is a doddle (working with a copy of a VM)


    There are better means of doing the same thing, such as keeping all
    configurations under source code control.

    > As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    > to that at all.


    It is a lot simpler.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  8. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-14, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:45:45 -0500, Ignoramus22875 wrote:
    >
    >>On 2008-09-13, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

    >
    >>> Are you using two or more virtual servers on one machine or are
    >>> those 15 just single, real servers?

    >
    >>No, we do not use virtualization at all. The servers are simply able
    >>to run more apps per server.

    >
    >>> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >>> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >>> genuinely useful.

    >
    >>I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    >>than one computer and want to run two OSes, or for ISPs. In my
    >>opinion, which is worthj what you paid for it, virtualization in
    >>corporate environment means poorly designed aplications that cannot
    >>cooperate with opne another properly.

    >
    > Yes, that's what I thought too.
    >
    > Sometimes it may make sense, for example, if you have to use
    > poorly designed applications and want to isolate the rest of
    > your systems from them without having to buy extra server
    > hardware.
    >
    > I've just had one case of a misbehaving Java program that runs
    > out of memory. Splitting it into two and letting the two parts
    > run on separate servers solves the problem. But, of course, the
    > proper solution would have been to put them on a 64 bit server
    > that has lots of (cheap) RAM to begin with. In this case the
    > company wasn't ready to upgrade their applications to the newer
    > Java version required for 64 bit operation.


    Agree.

    Another answer it to use ulimit (search for ulimit for details). You
    can limit the amount of virtual memory available for a process.

    > So let's conclude that virtual servers are often only a
    > workaround, an emergency pseudo-solution, for other problems
    > that haven't been solved directly. But there may be other cases
    > in which virtualization is a truly sensible solution.


    ISP is one good example.

    Another one is experimenting with stuff.
    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  9. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    In article <48cbce20$0$719$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.ne t>, Richard Rasker wrote:
    >ray wrote:

    (snip)

    >So if I understand your numbers correctly, administering Windows boxes takes
    >at least *ten times* the amount of work Linux boxes take. And I say "at
    >least", because you only were a sort of occasional, part-time sysadmin,
    >while this other guy had a fulltime job -- which means his work flow should
    >be rather more efficient than yours. This sounds pretty staggering. I know
    >that Windows sysadmins can't handle by far the amount of machines *nix
    >sysadmins handle, but I always understood it was merely (hahaha) a factor
    >of three or four, not ten.
    >
    >To all those Wintrolls: can you say "TCO"?


    You could ... but they wouldn't understand


  10. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    In article , Jure Sah wrote:
    >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >Hash: SHA1
    >
    >Ignoramus22875 pravi:
    >>> The reason behind my question is to find out more about the
    >>> value of virtualization. I'm wondering whether and where it is
    >>> genuinely useful.

    >>
    >> I think that it is useful either for people who cannot afford more
    >> than one computer and want to run two OSes,

    >
    >One good example is running Windows 95-only software on modern
    >computers. Since windows 95 can't handle ACPI you just can't install it
    >on a modern PC. And for servicing some old lab equipment there is only
    >software that works windows 95. VMWare is the only choice.


    Can't you turn ACPI off in the bios ? ... or am I missing something ? (and
    if so, what ? )

    Thanks

  11. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    In article , Matt wrote:
    >Tom Shelton wrote:

    (snip)
    >> I wonder how then, the company I work for, manages to manage all of the many
    >> thousands of windows machines that they own. Many hundreds of which are used
    >> by telecommuters - such as my self. Windows update is disabled, so they push
    >> only the updates they want.... Yet they never come to my house. hmmm.


    >He claimed it was harder, not impossible.


    ... and turning auto updates off solves a great number of problems - it
    stops them happening.


  12. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 14 Sep 2008 10:56:51 GMT, Moog wrote:

    >Hans-Georg Michna illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:


    >> So let's conclude that virtual servers are often only a
    >> workaround, an emergency pseudo-solution, for other problems
    >> that haven't been solved directly. But there may be other cases
    >> in which virtualization is a truly sensible solution.


    >I think your conclusion is incorrect.
    >
    >Virtualisation of servers makes good sense both in business and
    >computing terms on *so* many levels.
    >
    >1) Each virtualisation runs a specific server function
    >2) Each virtualisation is completely independent
    >3) Virtual hard drives are very easy to copy, back up, restore. Far
    >easier than to have to do it with multiple servers or one server
    >running multiple server tasks.
    >4) Upgrade paths are extremely easy. You simply clone the disk, apply
    >the upgrade. Test. If all is well, apply the upgraded VM as the
    >actual server. No downtime. No risk. Easier than updating a
    >traditional server.
    >5) You can run a huge amount of VM's (therefore independent servers) on
    >one piece of hardware.
    >
    >So. In conclusion. It's easier to set up, manage, upgrade and it's far
    >more economic.
    >
    >This is why many of the large IT companies are already heavily using
    >them.


    Good points. Thanks!

    Hans-Georg
    --
    No mail, please.

  13. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Ignoramus10454 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On 2008-09-14, Moog wrote:
    >> Ignoramus22875 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Most likely you could go to way fewer servers without virtualization,
    >>> if you could make your apps coexist within one OS.

    >>
    >> Hmmm. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    >>
    >> You wouldn't want you mail server, web server, file server, databse
    >> server all being run on the same OS IMHO.

    >
    > The real answer is that "it depends". How heavily are the components
    > used? Is there enough room?


    Usage is pretty much irrelevant as a seperate VM rather than a
    seperate machine is pretty much identical in speed - perhaps 10% loss
    to a VM, but when you wiegh that up to hardware and recovery costs, it
    is not much to lose.

    Room? You mean disk space?

    > What woud be more reliable, assuming they can all fit on one server?
    > Having all of these on one server, with another as backup? That would
    > be my answer.


    You could have them all on one server, operating as different VM's
    with another as back up. Your automated recovery would be easier to
    manage.

    Each to their own I suppose. I don't like Orange Juice. My missus
    swears by it.

    >> I'd certainly VM all those tasks. It makes for far easier management,
    >> keeps the date seperate, makes it far easier to back up, restore,
    >> move and means upgrading is a doddle (working with a copy of a VM)

    >
    > There are better means of doing the same thing, such as keeping all
    > configurations under source code control.


    Eh? You configure a server with git or bazaar?

    I'm intrigued. Any howto:s knocking about?

    >> As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    >> to that at all.

    >
    > It is a lot simpler.


    I beg to differ.

    --
    "So I rang up a local building firm, I said 'I want a skip outside my
    house.' He said 'I'm not stopping you.' ~ Tim Vine

  14. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-16, Moog wrote:
    > Ignoramus10454 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> On 2008-09-14, Moog wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus22875 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Most likely you could go to way fewer servers without virtualization,
    >>>> if you could make your apps coexist within one OS.
    >>>
    >>> Hmmm. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    >>>
    >>> You wouldn't want you mail server, web server, file server, databse
    >>> server all being run on the same OS IMHO.

    >>
    >> The real answer is that "it depends". How heavily are the components
    >> used? Is there enough room?

    >
    > Usage is pretty much irrelevant as a seperate VM rather than a
    > seperate machine is pretty much identical in speed - perhaps 10% loss
    > to a VM, but when you wiegh that up to hardware and recovery costs, it
    > is not much to lose.
    >
    > Room? You mean disk space?


    I mean disk space, memory and CPU.

    >> What woud be more reliable, assuming they can all fit on one server?
    >> Having all of these on one server, with another as backup? That would
    >> be my answer.

    >
    > You could have them all on one server, operating as different VM's
    > with another as back up. Your automated recovery would be easier to
    > manage.
    >
    > Each to their own I suppose. I don't like Orange Juice. My missus
    > swears by it.
    >
    >>> I'd certainly VM all those tasks. It makes for far easier management,
    >>> keeps the date seperate, makes it far easier to back up, restore,
    >>> move and means upgrading is a doddle (working with a copy of a VM)

    >>
    >> There are better means of doing the same thing, such as keeping all
    >> configurations under source code control.

    >
    > Eh? You configure a server with git or bazaar?


    I configure servers with CVS. Other people do it with cfengine.

    > I'm intrigued. Any howto:s knocking about?


    man cvs would be a great place to start.

    >>> As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    >>> to that at all.

    >>
    >> It is a lot simpler.

    >
    > I beg to differ.
    >


    Debian offers you some very great facilities for running many
    websites on one, non-virtual server.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  15. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Ignoramus14986 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> Eh? You configure a server with git or bazaar?

    >
    > I configure servers with CVS. Other people do it with cfengine.


    OK. Sorry. But that seems odd to me. Or did you *really* mean
    something other than "configure"?

    >> I'm intrigued. Any howto:s knocking about?

    >
    > man cvs would be a great place to start.


    You didn't mention cvs. And no, _man cvs_ does *not* give you a "howto:"
    on how to use it to "configure" a server.

    >>>> As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    >>>> to that at all.
    >>>
    >>> It is a lot simpler.

    >>
    >> I beg to differ.
    >>

    >
    > Debian offers you some very great facilities for running many
    > websites on one, non-virtual server.


    It's fine in a VM too. I currently have it running as a VM ERM and
    invoicing server alongside a few others too.

    They all co-exist perfectly.

    --
    "I was the kid next door's imaginary friend." ~ Emo Philips

  16. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    On 2008-09-16, Moog wrote:
    > Ignoramus14986 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> Eh? You configure a server with git or bazaar?

    >>
    >> I configure servers with CVS. Other people do it with cfengine.

    >
    > OK. Sorry. But that seems odd to me. Or did you *really* mean
    > something other than "configure"?


    I have a CVS tree with my websites. The CVS tree contains their
    sources such as HTML, perl CGI scripts, maintenance scripts etc.

    I keep that stuff backed up etc as this is my important intellectual
    property etc. (such as algebra.com)

    To set up a webserver, I would check out that source tree, set up a
    symlink to it from /etc/apache2/..., and use a2ensite to enable the
    site. This is actually done by a script, as I have a number of sites.

    Then CVS lets me keep it up to date, maintain a dev/prod server, or do
    whatever I want without getting lost in changes.

    >>> I'm intrigued. Any howto:s knocking about?

    >>
    >> man cvs would be a great place to start.

    >
    > You didn't mention cvs. And no, _man cvs_ does *not* give you a "howto:"
    > on how to use it to "configure" a server.
    >
    >>>>> As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    >>>>> to that at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a lot simpler.
    >>>
    >>> I beg to differ.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Debian offers you some very great facilities for running many
    >> websites on one, non-virtual server.

    >
    > It's fine in a VM too. I currently have it running as a VM ERM and
    > invoicing server alongside a few others too.
    >
    > They all co-exist perfectly.
    >


    To each his own, I would say.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  17. Re: One more update on Windows to Linux migration

    Ignoramus14986 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On 2008-09-16, Moog wrote:
    >> Ignoramus14986 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>> Eh? You configure a server with git or bazaar?
    >>>
    >>> I configure servers with CVS. Other people do it with cfengine.

    >>
    >> OK. Sorry. But that seems odd to me. Or did you *really* mean
    >> something other than "configure"?

    >
    > I have a CVS tree with my websites. The CVS tree contains their
    > sources such as HTML, perl CGI scripts, maintenance scripts etc.
    >
    > I keep that stuff backed up etc as this is my important intellectual
    > property etc. (such as algebra.com)


    Gotcha. I do similar, but have a running backup of my vmdi or vdi
    disks. I also have a real back up.

    > To set up a webserver, I would check out that source tree, set up a
    > symlink to it from /etc/apache2/..., and use a2ensite to enable the
    > site. This is actually done by a script, as I have a number of sites.
    >
    > Then CVS lets me keep it up to date, maintain a dev/prod server, or do
    > whatever I want without getting lost in changes.


    I quite like the idea of this and will look into it. This should work
    in my environment too.

    >>>> I'm intrigued. Any howto:s knocking about?
    >>>
    >>> man cvs would be a great place to start.

    >>
    >> You didn't mention cvs. And no, _man cvs_ does *not* give you a "howto:"
    >> on how to use it to "configure" a server.
    >>
    >>>>>> As for running within the same OS, I *really* deon't see any benefits
    >>>>>> to that at all.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is a lot simpler.
    >>>>
    >>>> I beg to differ.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Debian offers you some very great facilities for running many
    >>> websites on one, non-virtual server.

    >>
    >> It's fine in a VM too. I currently have it running as a VM ERM and
    >> invoicing server alongside a few others too.
    >>
    >> They all co-exist perfectly.
    >>

    >
    > To each his own, I would say.


    Absolutely.

    --
    "I was the kid next door's imaginary friend." ~ Emo Philips

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2